Liberal's support for Partial-Birth Abortion proves they are awful people with no conscience

[Moonglow]

But please make more false allegations without proof...

 

[occupied]

Oh good, another Christian Taliban thread where they want the government to criminalize being female and poor.

So your solution to being female and poor is to give her an abortion?

Maybe you're not aware that abortion can cause severe psychological trauma to women.

Abortion Risks: A list of major psychological complications related to abortion | After Abortion

Of course, you are a liberal and don't care about this.

Because, as I said in the other thread, liberals are awful people who don't know the difference between right and wrong.

You have to know by now that the right seems really schizophrenic finding fetuses precious but find poor children to be a horrible burden on the country. Fix this contradiction and then preach to us heathens.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Liberals love killing, abortions, criminals and euthenasia prove it.

1. You're the party of war
2. So you'd rather people that can't afford it to just have the baby??? Better be support welfare!
3. Euthenasia helps people that are hurting end it...If not that...What? Should the family go broke attempting to keep a family member a live that won't live much longer anyways?

The party of war?
Nope we didnt bomb libya, or help rebelles in syria and Egypt

And you have sex ed and contradiction, fucking use it. Be fucking responsible for once

Euthenasia is killing old people.. and life has no cost, you sound like a nazi. And why not encourage suicide then? Maybe if you dont like Trump being elected, just end it so you dont suffer.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Oh good, another Christian Taliban thread where they want the government to criminalize being female and poor.

So your solution to being female and poor is to give her an abortion?

Maybe you're not aware that abortion can cause severe psychological trauma to women.

Abortion Risks: A list of major psychological complications related to abortion | After Abortion

Of course, you are a liberal and don't care about this.

Because, as I said in the other thread, liberals are awful people who don't know the difference between right and wrong.

You have to know by now that the right seems really schizophrenic finding fetuses precious but find poor children to be a horrible burden on the country. Fix this contradiction and then preach to us heathens.

Simple dont have kids. Use a Rubber or the pill.
And if you do, find a job.
Its not unreasonable to expect people to be responsible and to work.

 

[occupied]

Oh good, another Christian Taliban thread where they want the government to criminalize being female and poor.

You can be female and poor all you like. Just stop stealing from me to support your kids, or to pay the fees for you to kill them.

Federal funds do not pay for abortions but they do go to various programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies and promote healthy babies and you people want to kill that as well.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

 

[Care4all]

yea, sure....

Blackrook and the republicans prefers they simply chop up the baby in tiny pieces in the womb, before evacuating!!

THAT'S what the R's did by the partial birth abortion ban, they banned the more humane method for the fetus and made all these women have to have their fetus chopped up inside them, before they are removed...that procedure, chopping them up, the R's left legal....
wow!

 

[occupied]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

 

[Blackrook]

yea, sure....

Blackrook and the republicans prefers they simply chop up the baby in tiny pieces in the womb, before evacuating!!

THAT'S what the R's did by the partial birth abortion ban, they banned the more humane method for the fetus and made all these women have to have their fetus chopped up inside them, before they are removed...that procedure, chopping them up, the R's left legal....
wow!

Wow, you're a sicko.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

I see you're admitting that the poor people put themselves there on their own. That will be all, thank you.

 

[turzovka]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

You have the answer or just assume none?

There are a million couples on waiting lists in this country willing to adopt almost any infant if given the chance. Christian churches and organizations do financially support mothers to bring their child to birth if they seek the help.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

yea, sure....

Blackrook and the republicans prefers they simply chop up the baby in tiny pieces in the womb, before evacuating!!

THAT'S what the R's did by the partial birth abortion ban, they banned the more humane method for the fetus and made all these women have to have their fetus chopped up inside them, before they are removed...that procedure, chopping them up, the R's left legal....
wow!

So, who advocated abortion in the first place? I think I remember it being the Democrats. I'm wondering how the sickos are the ones trying to put a stop to baby murder.

Of course, I know I'm talking to a wall, no amount of logic gets through to you at any point. You're just a propaganda drone.

 

[Care4all]

yea, sure....

Blackrook and the republicans prefers they simply chop up the baby in tiny pieces in the womb, before evacuating!!

THAT'S what the R's did by the partial birth abortion ban, they banned the more humane method for the fetus and made all these women have to have their fetus chopped up inside them, before they are removed...that procedure, chopping them up, the R's left legal....
wow!

Wow, you're a sicko.

nope! It's you guys that are the sickos...WHY in the world would they go after this abortion procedure, which removes the fetus intact instead of the only alternative procedure for 20 weeks which is the one that cuts up the fetus in the womb before removing....? What makes intact extraction more gruesome than a cut up fetus in side the womb that is then removed?

makes no sense to me, none....

 

[occupied]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

I see you're admitting that the poor people put themselves there on their own. That will be all, thank you.

Looks like you have never been in a situation where you have only two choices and both of them suck balls. How's life in your ivory tower where you have the luxury of all your choices being morally unambiguous?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

I see you're admitting that the poor people put themselves there on their own. That will be all, thank you.

Looks like you have never been in a situation where you have only two choices and both of them suck balls. How's life in your ivory tower where you have the luxury of all your choices being morally unambiguous?

You literally called their kids crack babies, are you backtracking on that?

Last I checked, people are fully capable of saving money for an emergency. You know, or choosing not to have a child if they can't support it. Or even both. Such a complicated thing, keeping your legs closed... even though I seem to have accomplished just that for whole life thus far.

 

[occupied]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

You have the answer or just assume none?

There are a million couples on waiting lists in this country willing to adopt almost any infant if given the chance. Christian churches and organizations do financially support mothers to bring their child to birth if they seek the help.

I have no problems with that but no one can say that all orphans get adopted or that we still will not end up with many thousands of wards of the state none of you want to spend money on. Whether to carry a baby to term or not is already an impossible decision for a single woman, taking that choice away from them and turning it into no choice is not an act of kindness.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

You have the answer or just assume none?

There are a million couples on waiting lists in this country willing to adopt almost any infant if given the chance. Christian churches and organizations do financially support mothers to bring their child to birth if they seek the help.

I have no problems with that but no one can say that all orphans get adopted or that we still will not end up with many thousands of wards of the state none of you want to spend money on. Whether to carry a baby to term or not is already an impossible decision for a single woman, taking that choice away from them and turning it into no choice is not an act of kindness.

You make a good argument for why Federal Aid programs shouldn't exist.

It would be a more possible decision if it wasn't for Abortion. Not that it's obvious that A: One shouldn't sleep with people if they don't want or can't support a child, or B: Killing the child is obviously the wrong decision.

Yes it is. It's kind to the child. It's kind to the mother, given the damage getting one causes. It's kind to the person in the sense that the choice to get one wouldn't haunt them forever. What we have here is what happens when people continue to advocate shirking personal responsibility.

 

[occupied]

Are you as a republican willing to maintain welfare, food stamps and public schools for the child?

You whine about how awful it is not to have the baby but than want to make life hell for the child after it is born.

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

I see you're admitting that the poor people put themselves there on their own. That will be all, thank you.

Looks like you have never been in a situation where you have only two choices and both of them suck balls. How's life in your ivory tower where you have the luxury of all your choices being morally unambiguous?

You literally called their kids crack babies, are you backtracking on that?

Last I checked, people are fully capable of saving money for an emergency. You know, or choosing not to have a child if they can't support it. Or even both. Such a complicated thing, keeping your legs closed... even though I seem to have accomplished just that for whole life thus far.

Ah abstinence, the birth control method that only really works for dead people. It's like saying that not driving a car is the only way to prevent traffic accidents.

 

[turzovka]

I have no problems with that but no one can say that all orphans get adopted or that we still will not end up with many thousands of wards of the state none of you want to spend money on. Whether to carry a baby to term or not is already an impossible decision for a single woman, taking that choice away from them and turning it into no choice is not an act of kindness.

Older orphaned kids do exist and are not so easily adopted, yes. But why should we do away with hundreds of thousands of babies each year that would gladly be adopted by well off couples because of those older kids? Is that even a fair argument?

And I would be willing to bet the great majority of abortions occur not because of the months of pregnancy because the mother or father does not want anything to do with a child after it's born. Big difference.

Ah abstinence, the birth control method that only really works for dead people. It's like saying that not driving a car is the only way to prevent traffic accidents.

Using abortion as a backup measure for birth control is immoral even unconscionable, imo. It's even done because of gender selection.

 

[buckeye45_73]

They need none of the above. A poor person has no business having a child they can't support. In fact, if they have a child they can't support, it's entirely out of their own irresponsibility. If someone is irresponsible, it's their job to accept the consequences of their actions, and it's NOT the job of the government to steal from tax-payers to support them.

That's because, regardless of how much you want to advocate it, murdering someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is inherently wrong. Also, putting the kid up for adoption is an option, you daft Fopdoodle.

So how many crack babies are you going to adopt?

I see you're admitting that the poor people put themselves there on their own. That will be all, thank you.

Looks like you have never been in a situation where you have only two choices and both of them suck balls. How's life in your ivory tower where you have the luxury of all your choices being morally unambiguous?

You literally called their kids crack babies, are you backtracking on that?

Last I checked, people are fully capable of saving money for an emergency. You know, or choosing not to have a child if they can't support it. Or even both. Such a complicated thing, keeping your legs closed... even though I seem to have accomplished just that for whole life thus far.

Ah abstinence, the birth control method that only really works for dead people. It's like saying that not driving a car is the only way to prevent traffic accidents.

Condoms and seat beltà and the pill is brakes, oh and you always get a perfect day and no other drivers on the road