On 06-14-19 08:57, Dan Clough <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Abortion <=-

The point is right below here, which was that the law (as written)
will likely never come to be. It was also to counter your
implication that the law was in practice right this minute.

The law has been passed and signed by the Governer.

The odds are VERY high that that will not even
happen, due to legal proceedings and "red tape". *IF* it ever
does go into effect, there will have been modifications made to
allow for abortions in cases of rape/incest.

Wishful thinking, and/or you admit the absurdity of the law.

Neither, actually. Admittedly it's an "educated guess", but I'm
pretty sure I'm correct. As for the "absurdity" - I completely
agree that there needs to be allowances made for cases of
rape/incest. No question about that. My belief is that the law
was written the way it was knowing how much "outrage" it would
cause, and then.... they'll add the exceptions for rape/incest and
be able to claim that they've made concessions and the law should
be enacted with those changes. In reality that is what was desired/planned the whole time.

That statement is spin. If they had meant for the exceptions to be part
of the law that they passed, they would have included them. Their
intent was to totally ban abortions with no exceptions (in direct
contridiction to federal law by the way).

The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.

Maybe so.

And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.

I hope it does happen.

You hope that many woman will start dying because of this -- sorry that
you feed that cruel.

We've had legalized murder for far too
long. If you're so against "women dying", why does it not bother
you that MILLIONS of babies have died?

Because they are not yet babies when the abortion happens.

... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.

This may be part of your problems... you're living in a Communist
section of the country!

Ah -- one of the rules of debate is that when you run out of things to
say, fall back on insulting your opponent.

And by no means do I live in a communist section of the country -- there
is no such thing in America.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:54:10, 15 Jun 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Hello Dan!

14 Jun 19 14:55, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

So in this case, being able to have an abortion or not will
depend on the money available to travel there.

Sure, I guess so.
One could always hitchhike, for free.

Was your point to illustrate how unfair the world is, and how
everybody is not "equal"?

No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number of abortions), but rather just increases inequality between people with and without money... which is not what people usually will tell you the new laws are made for.

Guess what? That is CORRECT. The world *IS* unfair, and not
everybody is "equal". Yep. Truth.

And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?

However, you brought up that topic (glad you did, though), but I was actually thinking about different things. However, I'll have to tell a bit about my family to explain:
My grandmother became a children's nurse during WWII, working in a makeshift children's hospital most of the time. After the war, she was so fed up with working in a hospital that she went into schooling again and became a midwife. Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted to hear her wartime stories, nor about what desperate people do to their newly born unwanted children, or how they try to abort pregnancies without proper medical aid available. If you did, you'd know that making abortions illegal again is nothing you'd really want.

If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"? What you'll need to do is pretty obvious:

- educate people
- make contraceptives easily available
- make baby hatches easily available


Regards,
Gerrit

... 10:04AM up 59 days, 18:25, 8 users, load averages: 0.36, 0.44, 0.40

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: We are a nation (2:240/12)

Dale Shipp wrote to Dan Clough <=-

The point is right below here, which was that the law (as written)
will likely never come to be. It was also to counter your
implication that the law was in practice right this minute.

The law has been passed and signed by the Governer.

Yes, and like nearly *EVERY* single state/federal law, it has a
"takes effect on...<date>". In this case it does NOT take effect
until November 2019, as I said originally. A fairly weak attempt
at diversion there on your part.

Neither, actually. Admittedly it's an "educated guess", but I'm
pretty sure I'm correct. As for the "absurdity" - I completely
agree that there needs to be allowances made for cases of
rape/incest. No question about that. My belief is that the law
was written the way it was knowing how much "outrage" it would
cause, and then.... they'll add the exceptions for rape/incest and
be able to claim that they've made concessions and the law should
be enacted with those changes. In reality that is what was desired/planned the whole time.

That statement is spin. If they had meant for the exceptions to
be part of the law that they passed, they would have included
them. Their intent was to totally ban abortions with no
exceptions (in direct contridiction to federal law by the way).

You missed the point (again). They meant the wording to be
exactly as written, yes.... but for a reason as I said above.
When they go back and add exceptions for rape/incest, it will make
it appear that they have "conceded" something and/or "compromised"
in the interests of bipartisanship. They still get what they
want. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The actual *REAL*
intent of this law is to get the question back in front of the US
Supreme Court for an attempt at overturning Roe v Wade.

Maybe so.

Not much "maybe" about it.

And thus go back to the era of coat hanger abortions and women
dying. I certainly hope that does not happen.

I hope it does happen.

You hope that many woman will start dying because of this --
sorry that you feed that cruel.

No, I do not hope that women start dying because of this. Another
weak attempt at twisting things up.

We've had legalized murder for far too
long. If you're so against "women dying", why does it not bother
you that MILLIONS of babies have died?

Because they are not yet babies when the abortion happens.

Yeah, that's always the argument. It has a human face, limbs,
fingers/toes, internal organs, and a *HEARTBEAT*. Telling me that
is not a baby is............ ridiculous.

... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland.

This may be part of your problems... you're living in a Communist
section of the country!

Ah -- one of the rules of debate is that when you run out of
things to say, fall back on insulting your opponent.

I didn't insult you. I merely pointed out that you're living in a
very oppressive and govt-controlling part of the country.

And by no means do I live in a communist section of the country
-- there is no such thing in America.

Not yet, anyway. Trust me when I tell you that there are plenty
of people in America who will ensure it never happens, despite the
attempts by the Leftists/Democrats to make it so.


... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-

Was your point to illustrate how unfair the world is, and how
everybody is not "equal"?

No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing
your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number
of abortions),

I believe that it would (lower the number of abortions).

but rather just increases inequality between
people with and without money... which is not what people usually
will tell you the new laws are made for.

I don't think it would measureably cause that.

Guess what? That is CORRECT. The world *IS* unfair, and not
everybody is "equal". Yep. Truth.

And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?

No, I would not agree that laws are usually made to overcome
inequality. They are made for whatever the perceived need is, not
directly to reduce inequality. For example, a new law regarding
the property tax rate in a county is not directed at reducing
inequality.

However, you brought up that topic (glad you did, though), but I
was actually thinking about different things. However, I'll have
to tell a bit about my family to explain:
My grandmother became a children's nurse during WWII, working in
a makeshift children's hospital most of the time. After the war,
she was so fed up with working in a hospital that she went into
schooling again and became a midwife. Believe me, you wouldn't
have wanted to hear her wartime stories, nor about what desperate
people do to their newly born unwanted children, or how they try
to abort pregnancies without proper medical aid available. If you
did, you'd know that making abortions illegal again is nothing
you'd really want.

I know that atrocities exist and happen. No amount of legislating
is going to stop that.

If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to
change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people
who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford
into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an
abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"?

Could you please help convince other liberals, using that *EXACT*
logic, that changing "too liberal" firearm laws is not going to
solve/change the gun-violence problems? The bottom line is this:
Criminals don't follow laws, and will do what they're going to do
regardless of what the law says.

What you'll need to do is pretty obvious:
- educate people
- make contraceptives easily available
- make baby hatches easily available

I think education is already there/available. If we need more,
use the funds currently going to Planned Parenthood that are used
to kill babies. Isn't education one of PP's intended functions?

Same logic applies to contraceptives. Let PP hand them out, using
the money saved by NOT doing abortions. Simple!

I'm not sure what a "baby hatch" is.


... All the easy problems have been solved.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hello Dan!

15 Jun 19 10:37, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing
your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number
of abortions),

I believe that it would (lower the number of abortions).

Yeah, it probably would on the paper the politicians would present.

but rather just increases inequality between
people with and without money... which is not what people usually
will tell you the new laws are made for.

I don't think it would measureably cause that.

No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people who could also go abroad?

And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put
unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?

No, I would not agree that laws are usually made to overcome
inequality.

Well, certainly not all of them. I guess you know what I was trying to say.

They are made for whatever the perceived need is, not
directly to reduce inequality. For example, a new law regarding
the property tax rate in a county is not directed at reducing
inequality.

But it should take into account that people having a more valuable lot/house/whatever probably could also afford paying a higher tax. I don't know how property tax works in the US, is it that way? Ours is just about to be reformed because it didn't do that anymore, and the federal court required the government to change that.

I know that atrocities exist and happen. No amount of legislating
is going to stop that.

On the contrary: the legislation propsed would foster that.

If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to
change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people
who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford
into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an
abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"?

Could you please help convince other liberals, using that *EXACT*
logic, that changing "too liberal" firearm laws is not going to solve/change the gun-violence problems? The bottom line is this: Criminals don't follow laws, and will do what they're going to do regardless of what the law says.

I don't think I'm going to follow that line of argument. However, it's good that we agree on the fact that the US is indeed having a gun-violence problem.

I think education is already there/available. If we need more,
use the funds currently going to Planned Parenthood that are used
to kill babies. Isn't education one of PP's intended functions?

I don't know about the details of your PP programme, but education certainly sounds like a logical part of that. Don't they do that?

Same logic applies to contraceptives. Let PP hand them out, using
the money saved by NOT doing abortions. Simple!

Again: Don't they do that already? Why not?

I'm not sure what a "baby hatch" is.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch>

Something intended to prevent people from abandoning newborn children somewhere outside (risking that they die very quickly).


Regards,
Gerrit

... 9:18PM up 60 days, 5:39, 8 users, load averages: 0.42, 0.41, 0.38

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: All carefully conceived (2:240/12)

No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people
who could also go abroad?

Abortion numbers in the USA is a grossly misrepresented subject.

Last year there were officially 3.853.472 babies born there and ultra right-wing anti-abortion groups claiming some 320.000 abortions.

My daughter who runs the delivery room in a major hospital here (Belgium) and quite familiar with US situations confirms the abortion numbers presented there are totally absurd.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hello Ward!

16 Jun 19 09:45, Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Last year there were officially 3.853.472 babies born there and ultra right-wing anti-abortion groups claiming some 320.000 abortions.

Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?


Regards,
Gerrit

... 10:01AM up 60 days, 18:22, 8 users, load averages: 0.38, 0.45, 0.40

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: We are the second generation (2:240/12)

Gerrit,

Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?

It's politically overhyped ... and religeously as well.

Also they're harping about late term abortions as if that is the most common thing, like 4-5 months which is ridiculous. It is very very very uncommon and under strict medical rules.

What they do have a point in is that certain very-low income classes of people cannot afford contraception and abortion then becomes a way of birth control for a specific category.

These people should be helped in a different way, "before" the girls get pregnant to avoid the pregnancy altogether ... but that is like talking to a stone wall.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hello Ward!

16 Jun 19 12:36, Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Also they're harping about late term abortions as if that is the most common thing, like 4-5 months which is ridiculous. It is very very
very uncommon and under strict medical rules.

Same or similar rules as here, I would guess.

What they do have a point in is that certain very-low income classes
of people cannot afford contraception and abortion then becomes a way
of birth control for a specific category.
These people should be helped in a different way, "before" the girls
get pregnant to avoid the pregnancy altogether ...

Which is exactly what I said before: Educate people and make contraception easily accessible.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 1:57PM up 60 days, 22:18, 8 users, load averages: 0.47, 0.49, 0.43

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: A love pays love for lying (2:240/12)

Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-

No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people who could also go abroad?

Abortion numbers in the USA is a grossly misrepresented subject.

Last year there were officially 3.853.472 babies born there and
ultra right-wing anti-abortion groups claiming some 320.000
abortions.

My daughter who runs the delivery room in a major hospital here
(Belgium) and quite familiar with US situations confirms the
abortion numbers presented there are totally absurd.

Well, what does she think the number is? You don't indicate in
which direction you/she think the number is skewed.

A quick google check (of non-"ultra-right-wing" websites) shows
the number to be roughly 640,000. Twice what you said. What a
surprise.


... 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Ward Dossche wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-

Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?

It's politically overhyped ... and religeously as well.

Yeah.... what's 640,000 murders in a year? No big deal, right?
By the way, it has nothing to do with "religion".

Also they're harping about late term abortions as if that is the
most common thing, like 4-5 months which is ridiculous. It is
very very very uncommon and under strict medical rules.

You're wrong on that. In addition, there are multiple states in
the USA where abortion is legal for the duration of a pregnancy,
in other words, up to the 9-month+ point. You think that is fine
too?

What they do have a point in is that certain very-low income
classes of people cannot afford contraception and abortion then
becomes a way of birth control for a specific category.

Sadly, it *has* become a form of birth control for that
demographic. What really sucks is that there are multiple
(govt-sponsored) ways to get FREE contraceptives, but these people
are too lazy to bother with that.

Oh, and did you know that there is a form of contraception which costs......... NOTHING? Yep. It's true.

These people should be helped in a different way, "before" the
girls get pregnant to avoid the pregnancy altogether ... but that
is like talking to a stone wall.

No argument from me on that.


... All the easy problems have been solved.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hello Dan!

16 Jun 19 08:39, Dan Clough wrote to Ward Dossche:

Yeah.... what's 640,000 murders in a year? No big deal, right?

I'm pretty sure it does not qualify as "murder" in court in your country... you're agitating.

You're wrong on that. In addition, there are multiple states in
the USA where abortion is legal for the duration of a pregnancy,
in other words, up to the 9-month+ point. You think that is fine
too?

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Oh, and did you know that there is a form of contraception which costs......... NOTHING? Yep. It's true.

What you're thinking of does not qualify for the usual definiton of "contraception"... agitation again.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 4:22PM up 61 days, 43 mins, 8 users, load averages: 0.52, 0.51, 0.43

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: So come and try to tell me (2:240/12)

Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-

You're wrong on that. In addition, there are multiple states in
the USA where abortion is legal for the duration of a pregnancy,
in other words, up to the 9-month+ point. You think that is fine
too?

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.

Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.


... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

A quick google check (of non-"ultra-right-wing" websites) shows
the number to be roughly 640,000. Twice what you said. What a
surprise.

I know those numbers and they simply cannot be correct, even if reported by the CDC.

First you need to decide what you're talking about. A miscarriage is also an aborted pregnancy, emergency "behind the fact" contraception may also be listed as an abortion ... maybe there wasn't even conception ... start throwing all these things together and you get impressive false numbers.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hello Dan!

16 Jun 19 11:01, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.

So your claim has no proof, and you're weaseling out. Thank you, Sir, no further questions necessary.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 7:52PM up 61 days, 4:13, 8 users, load averages: 0.23, 0.32, 0.35

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: America, America the western dream is gone (2:240/12)

On 16/06/2019 23:39, Dan Clough -> Ward Dossche wrote:

Less than 10%? What the heck are they talking about, then?

It's politically overhyped ... and religeously as well.

Yeah.... what's 640,000 murders in a year? No big deal, right?

If abortion is legal then there is no murder involved.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 17/06/2019 02:01, Dan Clough -> Gerrit Kuehn wrote:

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.

Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.

ROFL.

Dan's blinkers strike again. :)

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 17/06/2019 03:52, Gerrit Kuehn -> Dan Clough wrote:

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.

So your claim has no proof, and you're weaseling out. Thank you, Sir, no further questions necessary.

Dan doesn't like to communicate with those who disagree with him - he can never win a debate, so he sticks his head in the sand.


--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

Hello David,

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.

Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.

ROFL.

Dan's blinkers strike again. :)

Dan has a bad case of Lofaso on his mind. :)

--Lee

--
Big Or Small We Lay Them All

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

Numbers, please. Names and sources.

Look it up yourself, it's easily verified.
Don't bother responding.

So your claim has no proof, and you're weaseling out. Thank you, Sir,

no

further questions necessary.

Dan doesn't like to communicate with those who disagree with him - he can never win a debate, so he sticks his head in the sand.

There is a lot of sand at Pensacola beach.

--Lee

--
Nobody Beats Our Meat

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-

A quick google check (of non-"ultra-right-wing" websites) shows
the number to be roughly 640,000. Twice what you said. What a
surprise.

I know those numbers and they simply cannot be correct, even if
reported by the CDC.

How would you know they're not correct? What makes you an expert
on this? I don't know why you think you know more/better than
what is EASILY searched out on the internet. Yes, I know there's
a lot of bullshit on the internet. Take a look at the links here
and see if you think they are stupid and you are right:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

2. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

3. https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/health/abortion-fast-facts/index.html

I mean, how many more links do you need to see? Are they all
lying? Your daughter (not in the US) knows more than anyone else
about this?

First you need to decide what you're talking about. A miscarriage
is also an aborted pregnancy, emergency "behind the fact"
contraception may also be listed as an abortion ... maybe there
wasn't even conception ... start throwing all these things
together and you get impressive false numbers.

Yeah, except that's not the case. The links above are for
"medically induced abortions" (quoting from the first link). The
number do *NOT* include the other cases you attempted to confuse
the issue with. Repeat - the numbers do NOT include miscarriages,
emergency contraception, or anything else.

Now how about commenting on what those links say, and not being snarky/deceptive and trying to twist things. Can you do that?
And please don't bother claiming the links are from some "radical
right-wing viewpoint", because they are not.


... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive persons.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

David Drummond wrote to Dan Clough <=-

Don't bother responding. Your selective quoting/snipping, and
cherry picking sentences so as to better suit your point/agenda
has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.

ROFL.
Dan's blinkers strike again. :)

...And then there were three. (In the "ignore" bin).



... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive persons.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 17/06/2019 11:53, Dan Clough -> David Drummond wrote:

has grown tiresome. You're now in the same "ignore" category as
the whacko Lofaso. Buh-bye.

ROFL.
Dan's blinkers strike again. :)

..And then there were three. (In the "ignore" bin).

You'd forgotten that you put me there some weeks ago?

Your paranoia is fucking with your memory.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)