On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:07:12 -0500, (Judith
Althouse) wrote:

Handsome Jack said.
No, they should be in an ER somewhere, being examined by a "doctor".
And they should probably cooperate with the police in the gathering of
information.
________________________________
Jack,
Have you ever been raped? I have and I did not do the right thing,
according to your rules and regulations.

I'm very sorry that you were raped.

But my "rules and regulations" were drawn up for me by God, Judy. *I*
choose to obey them to the best of my abilities. And if given the
choice of angering you, or of angering God, I choose to anger you.

What started out as a discussion on the merits, in a supposedly FREE
country, of the government being able to *force* one of its citizens,
in particular a pharmacist, to go against *his* personal religious
beliefs, etc., has now unfortunately devolved into a discussion
regarding abortion. And I'm sorry that others apparently don't wish to
extend that same "freedom of choice" to the pharmacist, doctor, etc.

Yes, I am against abortion, particularly late-term or partial birth
abortions, which can really only be described as infanticide.

Yes, I think the Roe v Wade decision was an abomination, as do the
vast majority of legal and constitutional scholars, liberals and
conservatives alike.

Yes, I think Roe v Wade will be overturned one day, and subsequently
presented to The People to vote on, on a state by state basis, in the
finest tradition of a republican democracy.

And then if that's what The People decide on (and not just nine folks
in black ropes), I could live with their decision, even though I won't
still be alive by then to have to worry about it.

But were I still alive when that happened, I would still be against
abortion (yes, for any reason), because my own personal "rules and
regulations" would have remained the same.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Take the Global Warming test!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

In article ,
Shelly wrote:

Mark Shaw wrote in news:flcghq$d6p$1
@reader2.panix.com:

I, for one, welcome our new amphibian overlord! All hail Diddy!

http://r33b.net/

That is most excellent!

And vaguely disturbing at the same time.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
* | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.

In article ,
Kevin Michael Vail wrote:
And vaguely disturbing at the same time.

But fascinating - I had no idea that Diddy was amphibious.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
What started out as a discussion on the merits, in a supposedly FREE
country, of the government being able to *force* one of its citizens,
in particular a pharmacist, to go against *his* personal religious
beliefs, etc., has now unfortunately devolved into a discussion
regarding abortion.

Oh, the irony.

If you didn't want to discuss abortion - and I seriously doubt anyone
wanted to - why did you inject it into the conversation?

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Things that upset a terrier may pass
virtually unnoticed by a Great Dane." -Smiley Blanton

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:06:27 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shaw
wrote:

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
What started out as a discussion on the merits, in a supposedly FREE
country, of the government being able to *force* one of its citizens,
in particular a pharmacist, to go against *his* personal religious
beliefs, etc., has now unfortunately devolved into a discussion
regarding abortion.

Oh, the irony.

If you didn't want to discuss abortion - and I seriously doubt anyone
wanted to - why did you inject it into the conversation?

You really are a ****ing moron, aren't you?

I did no such thing.

That would be FurPaw, and others.

Go back and see for yourself.

In fact, I was content to stick to discussing the rights of certain
Muslim cab drivers, and tried twice to keep the discussion confined to
*that* particular subject.

Unfortunately, others here wanted to bring up rape, incest,
contraceptives, abortafacients, abortions, the rights of pharmacists,
etc., into the discussion, and *that's* how abortion got added to the
mix.

And even discussing abortion in that particular context (the right not
to be *forced* into becoming an accomplice to abortion) is not the
same thing as discussing it in regards to individuals personally
choosing to be pro-life or pro-choice, which is where Judy was heading
with it.

So go **** yourself.

Moron.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Take the Global Warming test!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:06:27 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shaw
wrote:

If you didn't want to discuss abortion - and I seriously doubt anyone
wanted to - why did you inject it into the conversation?

You really are a ****ing moron, aren't you?

I did no such thing.

The hell you didn't. You jumped right in with the silly (and
imaginary) example of a doctor being forced to perform abortions
and claimed that it was the same as that of a pharmacist being
required to do his normal job.

With both feet.

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Man is a dog's idea of what God should be." -Holbrook Jackson

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shaw
wrote:

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:06:27 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shaw
wrote:

If you didn't want to discuss abortion - and I seriously doubt anyone
wanted to - why did you inject it into the conversation?

You really are a ****ing moron, aren't you?

I did no such thing.

The hell you didn't. You jumped right in with the silly (and
imaginary) example of a doctor being forced to perform abortions
and claimed that it was the same as that of a pharmacist being
required to do his normal job.

With both feet.

That was *after* FurPaw brought up pharmacists prescribing
abortafacients and contraceptives, you ****ing moron.

And twice I asked folks not to "wander too far off the reservation."

It's all there, if you want to look it up.

But you won't do that, of course, because you're still the same
****-disturbing moron you always were.

Asshole.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Take the Global Warming test!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Gl...est/start.html

Without looking it up, because I'm just not doing that right this minute,
I always assumed that Smith came from words like "Blacksmith" - which I'm
thinking would make it English origin.

Judy

As a Smith-Smith, (by two marriages g), I do know where it started, tho it
probably came about the same way from various countries, in various other
'names/spellings'.

As you said, Judy, "Blacksmith" and such used the 'smith' to denote the
various occupations.
A note on this from my Scottish 'Book of Names/Clans/Tartans, etc.' says
that if *I* as a Murray, (clan name), married a 'Smith', they were to take
on MY clan name, insignia, tartan and all else. This was because there was
NO actual literal 'Smith' clan.

Oh and Booga Booggity to all of you! G

Mare and Da Smiff Den

"Mary Beth" wrote in message
...
(snip)
As a Smith-Smith, (by two marriages g), I do know where it started, tho
it probably came about the same way from various countries, in various
other 'names/spellings'.

You married two different men with the same surname, or the surname man
twice? I'm betting on two different men, and that is really funny. That is
so, so, so Mary Beth.

Booga Booggity to you too!
Karla

Jack said in part.....
And even discussing abortion in that particular context......is not the
same thing as discussing it in regards to individuals personally
choosing to be pro-life or pro-choice, which is where Judy was heading
with it....
________________________
Jack,
I responded to your comments about what someone should do when they
are raped.
I shared my experience to let you know that people do not always do
what you suggested is appropriate in the case of rape.
I wanted you to know there are other women and children like me that
are afraid to tell the truth, for various reasons.
That is what I intended my post to be about.
My intent was to let you know that not eveyone has enough nerve to
call the police and go to the emergency room, even though that is the
right thing to do.
My reply was a direct response to your comments about what a woman
should do when raped. I wasn't heading anywhere with it.



Be Free.....Judy