Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"darwin smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...


You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
might have
with this statement.




It wasn't a statement, it was a question, and one that apparently stumped
you.

It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer"
was completely
obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige. I therefore treated
the comment as
a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/

Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
to prevent abortions,
with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall


under the general


category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about


them through


something called "sex education".




Those are not abortion procedures.




While I am firmly pro-choice,




You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.

I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.





I am willing to admit that the
anti-abortion side (which is
not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.




Anti-abortion IS pro-life.

Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about
birth control,
sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the
help. Let me
know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of
abortion,
and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to disagree
with you.

Rich Lemert