🚀 go-pugleaf

Davie wrote:
> 
> mrogoff@insync.x.net wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:49:39 -0500, Olin Murrell <olin@bga.com> wrote:

[snipped]

> > >He was considering vetoing a bill that would have allowed it.
> >
> > [snip]

[more snip]

> >
> > If your sentence referred to 'partial birth abortion', Clinton vetoed
> > a bill that would have restricted this procedure.
> 

I think you're probably right here. All I remember was some flap about
abortion, some bill, and Clinton reaffirming his general support for
abortion but making some comment about being opposed to "partial birth
abortion." To be honest, I've had so many conversations over the years
on two or three issues, JFK, Abortion and Gun Control, that I tend to
block out just about everything on them.

One cannot hope to change another's view on these issues, and IMHO, it's
pointless to try. I'm not even convinced I WANT to change someone else's
view on abortion, as I think that's what freedom of choice is really all
about.

>   I stated that CLinton supports partial birth abortion.  How much time
> will pass before the Democrats claim that a woman should have a six
> month warranty on each child.

Right after the Republicans begin fining the child because the parents
are on welfare.

>  If for some reason she is not happy with the child, take it back to the
> hospital for quick, and easy disposal.....of course, the whole
> procedure  will be paid for with US Tax dollars!

Oh, but you can do that now. It's called relinquishing your parental
rights, and putting the child up for adoption. In some cases, that would
be far more humane than actually trying to raise it.

-- 
Olin Murrell
Austin, Texas
http://www.realtime.com/~olin