Well... so what? Tthe real issue here is that all children should be loved and taken care of in a healthy environment. Abortion is obviously not a nice thing, but I think it's a far better alternative than having a woman put a three year old in the trunk of a car or letting them be sexually abused by non-caring parents or living in squalor like those children you see on the Sally Struthers CARE infomercials. And something you're missing here is that if people were forced to be licensed to have children, abortions would be non-existent. And one more point is that I don't think NARAL or anybody else (besides myself and a couple of others) has made any statements to the effect that women should be licensed to have children.
- Matthew Small ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > You're splitting hairs here. The argument that groups like NARAL make is that it's a womans body, she can do with it what she wants. That includes getting an abortion, and getting pregnant. I find it laughable that those who would support abortion, would support a measure such as this. It's funny, abortion is mentioned, not as abortion, but reproductive rights, and the right to choose. Does that right not extend to the right to actually have a child or conceive one. Or, why don't abortion rights activists just say what we all already know. They don't care one bit about women who want to have children, they are only concerned about the ability to have an abortion, and the opinions by the pro-choice members of this list on this issue proves that point. > > >The difference is... > > > >When you tell somebody that they can't have a baby, you're restricting the > >use of the reproductive organs. > >When you tell somebody that they must have a baby (if that person is > >pregant), you're forcing the use of the reproductive organs. > > > >The government restricts all kinds of actions - driving under a certain age, > >doing drugs, murder - when the action taken could be detrimental to your own > >life or somebody else's. Restricting a woman's ability to have a baby does > >not physically change her body. Forcing her to have one does. > > > >- Matt Small > > > >---- Original Message ----- > >From: "Kevin Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:13 PM > >Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > > > > > >> So, when someone is declined for a license, the government is essentially > >telling them, you can't have kids. How is that not telling someone what > >they can and can't do with their body? > >> > >> >What does licensing someone to be a parent have to do with telling that > >> >person what to do with his or her body? > >> > > >> >I fail to understand your amazment. > >> > > >> >M > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:02 PM > >> >To: CF-Community > >> >Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > >> > > >> > > >> >I hope you're kidding. Otherwise Larry, you are making a huge hypocrite > >> >out of yourself. It's not ok to tell a woman what she can do with her > >> >body when it comes to aborting a pregnancy, but it's ok to do it before > >> >she conceives? Where is the logic in that one? You can't have it both > >> >ways. You don't want government telling you what you can and can't do > >> >to your body after conception, but before conception it's ok? Amazing. > >> > > >> >>Have to agree as well, but it would be a killer to enforce. > >> >> > >> >>larry > >> >> > >> >>At 11:45 AM 8/5/2003 -0400, Matthew Small wrote: > >> >>>I'm completely with your wife on that one. > >> >>> > >> >>>- Matt Small > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>----- Original Message ----- > >> >>>From: "Marwan Saidi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:36 AM > >> >>>Subject: Yet another scumbag parent.... > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >Frankly at times I think that parents should be licensed in order > >> >>> > >to have > >> >>>kids. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >larry > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > No kidding. Here in FL, you need a license to drive, to go boating > >> >>> > ,to > >> >>>fish, or to hunt, but anyone can have a kid? Does not make much sense > >> >>>to me. My wife is even more extreme. She believes that women should be > >> > > >> >>>put on Norplant or Depo Provera (sp?) until such time as they have > >> >>>passed a parenting test. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Sort of Orwellian I suppose, but an idea not without merit... > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> > > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
