 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) So, knowing that there is no 100% sure method other than vastectomy (sp?) or its equivalent for women, then either lay down on operation table, or "if you don't want to have child, do not make sex ever" right? sorry Tim but: Hehehehehehehehe. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Selçuk Göre" <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote in message news:3A0FF811.1D604F...ine.com... (...) There are known methods of having sex and not having it result in pregnancy which can be used. If you don't want to have a child, I would say don't allow (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I have found it uncommon for Republicans to advocate anal sex. But remember it's not 100% in a heterosexual couple. (...) You are nothing but a group of cells. (...) Not in the context of our government. Maybe not ever. (...) They traumatize (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zBp9.KGB@lugnet.com... (...) pregnancy (...) remember (...) I was not advocating anal sex. I was referring to contraceptives, condoms, and other forms of protection. I do not advocate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Oh, I thought you meant a way that was sure to avoid conception. The pill and other female-based chemical methods are pretty reliable. The condom is less so, but still pretty good. From there it's down hill. I'm not actually sure where anal (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zEJ9.74n@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) less (...) sure (...) aren't (...) Yep. (...) Personal and moral reasons. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) It fits in right....ummmmm....no further comment. (...) I must resist....I must resist... I can't resist. Wouldn't it be near the bottom? :-) Bruce (pushing the boundries of good taste) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:G3zFwF.BMz@lugnet.com... (...) LOL!! (good thing this wasn't xposted to fun) ;-) -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I find this whole topic to be a big pain in the... never mind. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) *I* wouldn't know. ;-) Bruce (OOooooo, more cheap shots!) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) But my point was that none of those methods are 100% which is what it seemed you were suggesting. That is, it seemed you were simply saying that there were some ways to have sex without having a baby. (...) OK, this could be (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Geez! You kids are bad. These posts belong in .pun, don't they? Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zJ1o.MKB@lugnet.com... (...) as (...) part (...) act (...) I find it asthetically unpleasing, heterosexual or homosexual, at this point in my life. But, I prefer not to be examined to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) IMO, an explicit discussion of sexual practices, be they hetero or homosexual might not be in order, considering that Lugnet is a "family forum" and kids might stumble in here. Granted, we might not want young minds to have to tackle the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3zJow.1ux@lugnet.com... (...) might (...) instead (...) is a (...) homosexual (...) kids (...) tackle (...) Agreed. I don't particularly want to engage in that discussion, hence I summarized (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) My, my, aren't we anal retentive. Has our humor bottomed out? Or will this continue to be the butt of more jokes? Perhaps we are off-target and the jests are not making a hole-in-one? All these questions and the answer is....? Alimentary, my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Gad!!! I hadn't thought of that....Whew....I just read the Terms of Use Agreement, and I think I'm on safe ground even if it's a bit risque. I'll go ahead and let it drop for the sake of the kiddies who are made uncomfortable. (...) But I want (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) As I said in my first pharagraph, there is no methods with 100% relaibility, even when used in combination. Other than some surgical operations of course. So if you don't want to be cut, there is always a possibility to have a babe as a result (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I think that should have been "and the answer is:" You should have used a colon. (...) I'm afraid I'll need a little time to digest that last bit. Dave! FUT off-topic.pun (at last) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) For both comedic timing and consistency in using question marks, no. And let's not even bring up a semi-colon: I don't like half-assed punctuation. (...) To say nothing of the tapeworm. :-0 Bruce (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Most of those forms of protection aren't very reliable. When dealing with the enormous responsibility of having a child, even 99% effectiveness doesn't cut it. Sterilization is the only TRUE 100% effective contraceptive (assuming followup (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
