On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>>>
>>>>What hard and fast rule?
>>>
>>>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>>>
>>>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>
>>>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>comrades burn them. (google it)
>>
>>I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.
>
>You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to
>prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
>That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
>Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
>have sex.
>Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.
>
> More common
> Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
> Abdominal or stomach pain
> dizziness
> headache
> nausea
> tenderness of the breasts
> unusual tiredness or weakness
> vomiting
>
>Less common
>
> Diarrhea
> Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
> cramps
> Irregular menstruation
> Pain
> Pain in the pelvis
> Stopping of menstrual bleeding
>
>How many of those would a woman want, just in case?
>
>
>
Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
and long term:
https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html

Gosh!

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
>><me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>>>
>>>If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
>>
>>Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.
>
>I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
>abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
>Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
>happens.
>
>No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
>have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?

Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned
parenthood failed her. "

On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>>>
>>>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>>>reading, Greg.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>>>
>>>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>>>biased writer.
>>>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>>>
>>>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>>>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>>>before they die, if they are lucky.
>>>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>>>child late term. Just one.
>>
>>Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
>>the fact.
>>
>>But here, another source:
>>
>>"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
>>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
>>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
>>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
>>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
>>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
>>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
>>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
>>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
>>firearms in the same time period."
>>
>>https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
>>
>>That's a lot of babies!
>
>I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical
>justification for those abortions.
>
>This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
>you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.

Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
> >
> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
> >
> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an>>abortion? >>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting>pregnant.>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom. >Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pillsis a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortionsare free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood? Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option forwomen experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re oftenasked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not freeat Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costshundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage ofpregnancy the woman is in.>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-de
ath'. After all, it's only a fetus>>>>kicking, right?>>>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they>>>are kicking in my door. >>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the>murders?>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that>socioeconomic situation than you did. >These are not the most responsible bunch. >>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle>school, I would like to chip in. >Try to get the righteous right to agree with that. >You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get>judged by the people you associate with. >>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.>>Actually not. I only deal with reality. I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pillswork, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12week abortion.

ABORTIONS R US ought to be the official name for PP. Lets call a
spade a spade.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
>>>abortion?
>>
>>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
>>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
>>pregnant.
>>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
>>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability
>>
>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:
>
>Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
>Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
>pregnancy the woman is in.
>

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

>
>>
>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>kicking, right?
>>>>
>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>>>>are kicking in my door.
>>>
>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?
>>
>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
>>murders?
>>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
>>These are not the most responsible bunch.
>>
>>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
>>school, I would like to chip in.
>>Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
>>You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
>>judged by the people you associate with.
>>>
>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.
>>
>>Actually not. I only deal with reality.
>
>I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
>week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:50:22 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>>>>
>>>>>What hard and fast rule?
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>>
>>>>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>>comrades burn them. (google it)
>>>
>>>I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.
>>
>>You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to
>>prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
>>That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
>>Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
>>have sex.
>>Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.
>>
>> More common
>> Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
>> Abdominal or stomach pain
>> dizziness
>> headache
>> nausea
>> tenderness of the breasts
>> unusual tiredness or weakness
>> vomiting
>>
>>Less common
>>
>> Diarrhea
>> Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
>> cramps
>> Irregular menstruation
>> Pain
>> Pain in the pelvis
>> Stopping of menstrual bleeding
>>
>>How many of those would a woman want, just in case?
>>
>>
>>
>Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
>and long term:
>https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html
>
>Gosh!

I see your "risk of abortion" and raise you the risk of pregnancy.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html

Maybe we should just tell women to stop having sex. Maybe just be
lesbians.
Problem solved.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
>>><me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>>>>
>>>>If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
>>>
>>>Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.
>>
>>I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
>>abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
>>Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
>>happens.
>>
>>No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
>>have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".
>
>How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?
>
>Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned
>parenthood failed her. "

You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.

OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:54:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>>>>reading, Greg.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>>>>
>>>>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>>>>biased writer.
>>>>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>>>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>>>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>>>>
>>>>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>>>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>>>>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>>>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>>>>before they die, if they are lucky.
>>>>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>>>>child late term. Just one.
>>>
>>>Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
>>>the fact.
>>>
>>>But here, another source:
>>>
>>>"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
>>>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
>>>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
>>>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
>>>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
>>>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
>>>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
>>>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
>>>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
>>>firearms in the same time period."
>>>
>>>https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
>>>
>>>That's a lot of babies!
>>
>>I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical
>>justification for those abortions.
>>
>>This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
>>you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.
>
>OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.
>
>Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
>abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.

"Most" abortions are not late term and I bet the majority of the late
term are deemed medically indicated. Roe never did protect late term
abortion so it could still be prosecuted but I won't let facts get in
the way of a good rant.
You got your wish. Roe is history unless the leak was wrong. Live with
the fallout. You just gave the democrats an issue to run on.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>> >
>> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>> >
>> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>
>> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>being ignored.
>
>Let me fix that for you:
>Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>
>You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:36:00 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

>John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an>>abortion? >>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on
time and in sync.>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting>pregnant.>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom. >Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pillsis a bigger decision than getting an
abortion. Do you think abortionsare free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood? Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option forwomen experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re oftenasked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not
>freeat Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costshundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage ofpregnancy the woman is in.>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>>>kicking, right?>>>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when
they>>>are kicking in my door. >>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the>murders?>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could>afford to get out. I
probably knew a lot more people in that>socioeconomic situation than you did. >These are not the most responsible bunch. >>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle>school, I would like to chip in. >Try to get the righteous right to agree with that. >You may be more progressive than some of your
counterparts but
>you get>judged by the people you associate with. >>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.>>Actually not. I only deal with reality. I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pillswork, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12week abortion.
>
>ABORTIONS R US ought to be the official name for PP. Lets call a
> spade a spade.

Thank you for being You.

See what I mean John and Justan. It is binary.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
> >> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
> >> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
> >> >
> >> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
> >> >
> >> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
> >
> >> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
> >being ignored.
> >
> >Let me fix that for you:
> >Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
> >
> >You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.

> It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
> of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.
> OK quick question.
> When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
>>>> <me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net>
>>>>>> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard
>>>>>> and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast
>>>>>> rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you
>>>>>> folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us
>>>>>> they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that
>>>>>> makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down
>>>>>> planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is
>>>>>> the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of
>>>>>> yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>>>>>
>>>>> If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.
>>>
>>> I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
>>> abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
>>> Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
>>> happens.
>>>
>>> No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
>>> have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".
>>
>> How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?
>>
>> Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned
>> parenthood failed her. "
>
> You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
> It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
> Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.
>
> OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?
>
>
>

Maybe a good idea, if you father 2 kids and can’t support them.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>> >> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>> >> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>> >> >
>> >> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>> >> >
>> >> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>> >
>> >> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>> >being ignored.
>> >
>> >Let me fix that for you:
>> >Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>> >
>> >You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>
>> It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>> of abortion.
>
>Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.
>
>> OK quick question.
>> When is abortion OK?
>
>Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.
>
>If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
>:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
>>>>abortion?
>>>
>>>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
>>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
>>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
>>>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
>>>pregnant.
>>>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
>>>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability
>>>
>>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
>>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
>>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:
>>
>>Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
>>Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
>>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
>>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
>>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
>>pregnancy the woman is in.
>>
>
>What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
>You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
>that isn't.
>BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
>somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
>money unless you are using mandatory implants.
>
>Sell that.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>>kicking, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>>>>>are kicking in my door.
>>>>
>>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?
>>>
>>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
>>>murders?
>>>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
>>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
>>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
>>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
>>>These are not the most responsible bunch.
>>>
>>>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
>>>school, I would like to chip in.
>>>Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
>>>You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
>>>judged by the people you associate with.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.
>>>
>>>Actually not. I only deal with reality.
>>
>>I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
>>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
>>week abortion.
>
>Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
>can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
>super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
>women who swear they took them right.
>
>Abortion is a one and done.
>
Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 20:43:55 UTC-3, John H wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
> >>>>abortion?
> >>>
> >>>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
> >>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
> >>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
> >>>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
> >>>pregnant.
> >>>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
> >>>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability
> >>>
> >>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
> >>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
> >>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:
> >>
> >>Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
> >>Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
> >>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
> >>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
> >>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
> >>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
> >>pregnancy the woman is in.
> >>
> >
> >What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
> >You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
> >that isn't.
> >BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
> >somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
> >money unless you are using mandatory implants.
> >
> >Sell that.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
> >>>>>>kicking, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
> >>>>>are kicking in my door.
> >>>>
> >>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?
> >>>
> >>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
> >>>murders?
> >>>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
> >>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
> >>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
> >>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
> >>>These are not the most responsible bunch.
> >>>
> >>>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
> >>>school, I would like to chip in.
> >>>Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
> >>>You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
> >>>judged by the people you associate with.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.
> >>>
> >>>Actually not. I only deal with reality.
> >>
> >>I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
> >>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
> >>week abortion.
> >
> >Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
> >can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
> >super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
> >women who swear they took them right.
> >
> >Abortion is a one and done.
> >
> Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.
>
> The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
> TWO fucking pills.
>
> Wake the fuck up.

What the 'ell!
You going batshit crazy on us Johnny?

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:32:44 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:50:22 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What hard and fast rule?
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>>>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>>>comrades burn them. (google it)
>>>>
>>>>I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.
>>>
>>>You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to
>>>prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
>>>That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
>>>Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
>>>have sex.
>>>Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.
>>>
>>> More common
>>> Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
>>> Abdominal or stomach pain
>>> dizziness
>>> headache
>>> nausea
>>> tenderness of the breasts
>>> unusual tiredness or weakness
>>> vomiting
>>>
>>>Less common
>>>
>>> Diarrhea
>>> Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
>>> cramps
>>> Irregular menstruation
>>> Pain
>>> Pain in the pelvis
>>> Stopping of menstrual bleeding
>>>
>>>How many of those would a woman want, just in case?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
>>and long term:
>>https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html
>>
>>Gosh!
>
>I see your "risk of abortion" and raise you the risk of pregnancy.
>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html
>
>Maybe we should just tell women to stop having sex. Maybe just be
>lesbians.
>Problem solved.

Unprotected, maybe? Your 'risk of pregnancy' means women should not
get pregnant. Pretty easy.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:35:38 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
>>>><me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>>>>>
>>>>>If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.
>>>
>>>I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
>>>abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
>>>Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
>>>happens.
>>>
>>>No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
>>>have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".
>>
>>How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?
>>
>>Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned
>>parenthood failed her. "
>
>You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
>It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
>Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.
>
>OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?
>

You totally missed that point, didn't you?

Your shit sounds more and more like Harry's every day!

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:44:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:54:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>>>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>>>>>reading, Greg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>>>>>
>>>>>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>>>>>biased writer.
>>>>>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>>>>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>>>>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>>>>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>>>>>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>>>>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>>>>>before they die, if they are lucky.
>>>>>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>>>>>child late term. Just one.
>>>>
>>>>Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
>>>>the fact.
>>>>
>>>>But here, another source:
>>>>
>>>>"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
>>>>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
>>>>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
>>>>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
>>>>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
>>>>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
>>>>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
>>>>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
>>>>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
>>>>firearms in the same time period."
>>>>
>>>>https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
>>>>
>>>>That's a lot of babies!
>>>
>>>I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical
>>>justification for those abortions.
>>>
>>>This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
>>>you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.
>>
>>OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.
>>
>>Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
>>abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.
>
>"Most" abortions are not late term and I bet the majority of the late
>term are deemed medically indicated. Roe never did protect late term
>abortion so it could still be prosecuted but I won't let facts get in
>the way of a good rant.
>You got your wish. Roe is history unless the leak was wrong. Live with
>the fallout. You just gave the democrats an issue to run on.

I gave no one anything.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 19:43:52 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
>>>>>abortion?
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
>>>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
>>>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
>>>>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
>>>>pregnant.
>>>>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
>>>>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability
>>>>
>>>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
>>>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
>>>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:
>>>
>>>Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
>>>Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
>>>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
>>>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
>>>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
>>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
>>>pregnancy the woman is in.
>>>
>>
>>What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
>>You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
>>that isn't.
>>BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
>>somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
>>money unless you are using mandatory implants.
>>
>>Sell that.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>>>kicking, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>>>>>>are kicking in my door.
>>>>>
>>>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?
>>>>
>>>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
>>>>murders?
>>>>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
>>>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
>>>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
>>>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
>>>>These are not the most responsible bunch.
>>>>
>>>>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
>>>>school, I would like to chip in.
>>>>Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
>>>>You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
>>>>judged by the people you associate with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.
>>>>
>>>>Actually not. I only deal with reality.
>>>
>>>I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
>>>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
>>>week abortion.
>>
>>Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
>>can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
>>super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
>>women who swear they took them right.
>>
>>Abortion is a one and done.
>>
>Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.
>
>The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
>TWO fucking pills.
>
>Wake the fuck up.

They are still abortions in the eyes of right to life people but they
also have to be taken before you know you are pregnant. Are you saying
a woman should be taking one (or two) every time she has sex with all
of the side effects?
https://www.drugs.com/sfx/morning-after-side-effects.html

How long will the average person do that?

Then there is the cost, these things aren't cheap. I know you are rich
but a lot of girls can't cough up $35-70 on a moments notice and hours
count.
The non-prescripton one is not always effective with "Big" girls
(>26BMI)
The one that does work better is prescription only ... add another
$100-200 to the cost, assuming you can get an appointment in less
than 72 hours.

I just think rich old white men should not be telling women what to do
with their uterus. When you grow one, you have a vote.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>> >
>>> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>> >
>>> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>>
>>> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>>being ignored.
>>
>>Let me fix that for you:
>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>>
>>You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>
>It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>of abortion..
>
>OK quick question.
>
>When is abortion OK?
>
>I will wait for all of you to answer

If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never."
However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
incest. That last one is a real compromise.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>> >> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>> >> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>>> >
>>> >> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>>> >being ignored.
>>> >
>>> >Let me fix that for you:
>>> >Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>>> >
>>> >You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>>
>>> It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>>> of abortion.
>>
>>Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.
>>
>>> OK quick question.
>>> When is abortion OK?
>>
>>Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.
>>
>>If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
>>:)
>
>I just listen to what people say.
>I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
>business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
>people.
>Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>>> >> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>> >> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>>>> >
>>>> >> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>>>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>>>> >being ignored.
>>>> >
>>>> >Let me fix that for you:
>>>> >Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>>>> >
>>>> >You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>>>
>>>> It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>>>> of abortion.
>>>
>>>Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.
>>>
>>>> OK quick question.
>>>> When is abortion OK?
>>>
>>>Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.
>>>
>>>If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
>>>:)
>>
>>I just listen to what people say.
>>I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
>>business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
>>people.
>>Humans are not an endangered species.
>
>Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
you don't have ovaries.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:27:09 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>> >
>>>> >> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>> >> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>>> >
>>>> >Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>>>
>>>> >>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>>>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>>>being ignored.
>>>
>>>Let me fix that for you:
>>>Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.
>>>
>>>You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>>
>>It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>>of abortion..
>>
>>OK quick question.
>>
>>When is abortion OK?
>>
>>I will wait for all of you to answer
>
>If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never."
>However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
>after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
>f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
>incest. That last one is a real compromise.

Not much compromise there.
The pill you talk about is only effective if you take it before you
think you might be pregnant. If you are Paris Hilton and $70 means
nothing to you. go ahead and take one every time you have sex but that
is unrealistic unless you decide the government will just have them in
every ladies room for free. No doctor's visit or prescription would be
needed.

Maybe the government should tax right to lifers for the extra burden
unwanted children put on our society. (welfare payments, crime and the
cost of prisons)
It reminds me of the PETA people who want to ban hunting but they are
not willing to replace the money hunters pay into wildlife management
programs.

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>> <3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>> <345...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>>>>>>>> said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>>>>>>>> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary
>>>>>>>> issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not
>>>>>>>> be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be
>>>>>>>> "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just
>>>>>>>> hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both
>>>>>>>> sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you
>>>>>>>> believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>>>>>> happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>>>>>> being ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me fix that for you:
>>>>>> Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate
>>>>>> the real issues that they want to ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So
>>>>>> you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion
>>>>>> up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they
>>>>>> are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
>>>>> of abortion.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people
>>>> that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.
>>>>
>>>>> OK quick question.
>>>>> When is abortion OK?
>>>>
>>>> Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape,
>>>> incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in
>>>> the first tri. I do.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the
>>>> typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in
>>>> sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
>>>> :)
>>>
>>> I just listen to what people say.
>>> I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
>>> business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
>>> people.
>>> Humans are not an endangered species.
>>
>> Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.
>
> OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
> you don't have ovaries.
>

:)

--
Lock Trump Up