A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[rightwinger]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

 

[BDBoop]

Hey I'm not the fake doctor here.

Your side seems to have quite a few.

Why is that, do you think?

he's never said he was a real doctor. not ever, hon.

who do you think is "fake"?

She must have missed her very own "Dr. House."

 

[Dr Grump]

Hey I'm not the fake doctor here.

Your side seems to have quite a few.

Why is that, do you think?

I have never claimed to be a doctor

Are you Jewish?

Or are you Mani or Dante....

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Where is the man held up to that same standard in your argument?
If we got tough on dead beat Dads, required them to take care of their kids instead of handling 90% of those cases in civil cases and there was a current boat load of them in prison and on the chain gangs the abortion rate would go down.
FINANCES is the #1 reason women, in those cases as finances does not play a role in the over 30 age group-convenience is their excuse, abort their babies. Not saying that is right but what financial risk do most fathers have with the current legal system we have concerning them being responsible for their kids?
The men get a FREE PASS in this debate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

ZEF...that is too funny.

I assume it means "zygote/embryo/fetus".

******* pseudo intellectuals.

Ahhh. That's a new one . . . and probably not a necessary one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Well, aren't YOU unreasonable.

Seriously, how much more ******* "support structure" do these whining little sluts NEED? Let me count 'em off. We have hospitals, firehouses, police stations, and all manner of other public buildings who will accept an abandoned baby, no questions asked and no liability whatsoever to the incubating slut in question. We have the foster care system and hosts of orphanages, funded by the taxpayers, to house the unwanted child until such time as he or she can be adopted or becomes an adult, whichever. We have rafts of public and private charities just itching to help her get medical care, psychological counseling, food, diapers, baby clothes, what-have-you. We have the Medicaid system practically going out and beating the bushes to look for new applicants for all-expenses-paid medical care. We have the SNAP program, WIC program and community food banks looking to dump groceries and baby formula on her. We have the Section 8 program looking to give her a place to live. We have so many freaking programs to educate single mothers and help them get jobs I don't even know where to start cataloguing them. God knows any HINT of stigmatizing the little whore for spreading her legs for every guy who waves a bottle of tequila at her is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a fart in an elevator these days.

So exactly what "support structure" do these bitches NEED that they don't have to keep them from killing their innocent, defenseless babies? I'd really like to know.

 

[Dr Grump]

If they have an abortion, they don't need any of those 'support structures'....

 

[Gadawg73]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Well, aren't YOU unreasonable.

Seriously, how much more ******* "support structure" do these whining little sluts NEED? Let me count 'em off. We have hospitals, firehouses, police stations, and all manner of other public buildings who will accept an abandoned baby, no questions asked and no liability whatsoever to the incubating slut in question. We have the foster care system and hosts of orphanages, funded by the taxpayers, to house the unwanted child until such time as he or she can be adopted or becomes an adult, whichever. We have rafts of public and private charities just itching to help her get medical care, psychological counseling, food, diapers, baby clothes, what-have-you. We have the Medicaid system practically going out and beating the bushes to look for new applicants for all-expenses-paid medical care. We have the SNAP program, WIC program and community food banks looking to dump groceries and baby formula on her. We have the Section 8 program looking to give her a place to live. We have so many freaking programs to educate single mothers and help them get jobs I don't even know where to start cataloguing them. God knows any HINT of stigmatizing the little whore for spreading her legs for every guy who waves a bottle of tequila at her is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a fart in an elevator these days.

So exactly what "support structure" do these bitches NEED that they don't have to keep them from killing their innocent, defenseless babies? I'd really like to know.

You do not live in the real world. I pity you. You are ignorant.
You have no clue.

 

[BDBoop]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Well, aren't YOU unreasonable.

Seriously, how much more ******* "support structure" do these whining little sluts NEED? Let me count 'em off. We have hospitals, firehouses, police stations, and all manner of other public buildings who will accept an abandoned baby, no questions asked and no liability whatsoever to the incubating slut in question. We have the foster care system and hosts of orphanages, funded by the taxpayers, to house the unwanted child until such time as he or she can be adopted or becomes an adult, whichever. We have rafts of public and private charities just itching to help her get medical care, psychological counseling, food, diapers, baby clothes, what-have-you. We have the Medicaid system practically going out and beating the bushes to look for new applicants for all-expenses-paid medical care. We have the SNAP program, WIC program and community food banks looking to dump groceries and baby formula on her. We have the Section 8 program looking to give her a place to live. We have so many freaking programs to educate single mothers and help them get jobs I don't even know where to start cataloguing them. God knows any HINT of stigmatizing the little whore for spreading her legs for every guy who waves a bottle of tequila at her is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a fart in an elevator these days.

So exactly what "support structure" do these bitches NEED that they don't have to keep them from killing their innocent, defenseless babies? I'd really like to know.

Misogynist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Meanwhile, we’ve got radical rightists in Mississippi attempting to violate the rule of law and the right to privacy of the state’s citizens:

Mississippi to decide if fertilized egg is a human being - Yahoo! News

 

[Cecilie1200]

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Well, aren't YOU unreasonable.

Seriously, how much more ******* "support structure" do these whining little sluts NEED? Let me count 'em off. We have hospitals, firehouses, police stations, and all manner of other public buildings who will accept an abandoned baby, no questions asked and no liability whatsoever to the incubating slut in question. We have the foster care system and hosts of orphanages, funded by the taxpayers, to house the unwanted child until such time as he or she can be adopted or becomes an adult, whichever. We have rafts of public and private charities just itching to help her get medical care, psychological counseling, food, diapers, baby clothes, what-have-you. We have the Medicaid system practically going out and beating the bushes to look for new applicants for all-expenses-paid medical care. We have the SNAP program, WIC program and community food banks looking to dump groceries and baby formula on her. We have the Section 8 program looking to give her a place to live. We have so many freaking programs to educate single mothers and help them get jobs I don't even know where to start cataloguing them. God knows any HINT of stigmatizing the little whore for spreading her legs for every guy who waves a bottle of tequila at her is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a fart in an elevator these days.

So exactly what "support structure" do these bitches NEED that they don't have to keep them from killing their innocent, defenseless babies? I'd really like to know.

Misogynist.

Yes, because all women are whining bitches who can't control their own twats. Oh, wait, no. That would just be you and your ilk.

Who's the REAL misogynist here? The one who hates lazy whores who make other women look bad by association, or the one who assumes that hatred of lazy whores is hatred of all women? Doesn't look to ME like I'M the one who spread my description around to all women.

If you expect me to apologize to the likes of you for my characterization, you should first try to stop resembling it so much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Meanwhile, we’ve got radical rightists in Mississippi attempting to violate the rule of law and the right to privacy of the state’s citizens:

Mississippi to decide if fertilized egg is a human being - Yahoo! News

Sad state of affairs when amoral ignoramuses are allowed to characterize the protection of human life as a "privacy issue". Last time I checked, the state decides on the legality of every OTHER killing performed under its jurisdiction, and no flatliner liberals are hollering that it "violates the right to privacy" of the ex-wife who kills her husband for the insurance.

What really boggles my mind is that these fools won't even understand the parallel.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Needless to say the Mississippi measure if passed would have no effect on abortions, it would only make criminals of women and the health professionals trying to assist them.

The measure would also be challenged in court and enjoined, spend years in litigation only to be struck down by the Court per Griswold/Roe/Casey; this is a pointless political stunt by the radical right, having noting to do with saving ‘innocent life.’

 

[logical4u]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Where is the man held up to that same standard in your argument?
If we got tough on dead beat Dads, required them to take care of their kids instead of handling 90% of those cases in civil cases and there was a current boat load of them in prison and on the chain gangs the abortion rate would go down.
FINANCES is the #1 reason women, in those cases as finances does not play a role in the over 30 age group-convenience is their excuse, abort their babies. Not saying that is right but what financial risk do most fathers have with the current legal system we have concerning them being responsible for their kids?
The men get a FREE PASS in this debate.

We are teaching them to be "deadbeat dads". The gov't schools don't allow anything taught about "morality", but want children to know sexual positions and acts. They are "encouraged" to experiment: if the girl wants to have sex, she will be taken to/told to go to Planned Parenthood or a similar clinic for "birth control" (the clinic is really in the business of abortions, so the methods/processes for birth control may not be clear, in some cases, defective condoms have been handed out). If for some strange, strange reason, if she does turn up pregnant (sex didn't have anything to do with it), the same clinic is there for her, all to willing to give her an abortion (without notifying her parents). The gov't pays for it, and everyone is happy (until she figures out that she murdered her own child).
How much responsibility is being taught to boys???? NONE. They are not allowed to act like boys: they can't roughhouse on the play ground (they will be medicated), they can't speak how they think (that is too harsh), they have to act like little girls, EXCEPT when it comes to sex.
We can't teach children morals, one parent in 10,000 might have an objection, so the "gov't" teaches them to be imoral tools, and that they have absolutely no other value than to be used as a sexual toy/ or to use others as a sexual toy. And then we are told that these "children" are our future and we must invest more money in their education.

What do you suggest to teach boys responsibilty?

 

[logical4u]

Meanwhile, we’ve got radical rightists in Mississippi attempting to violate the rule of law and the right to privacy of the state’s citizens:

Mississippi to decide if fertilized egg is a human being - Yahoo! News

Obama care has already wiped the law to privacy. How secure do you think "your" medical records will be on gov't computers? How secure do you think your health care records will be with the IRS (the collection agency for ObamaCare)?

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, aren't YOU unreasonable.

Seriously, how much more ******* "support structure" do these whining little sluts NEED? Let me count 'em off. We have hospitals, firehouses, police stations, and all manner of other public buildings who will accept an abandoned baby, no questions asked and no liability whatsoever to the incubating slut in question. We have the foster care system and hosts of orphanages, funded by the taxpayers, to house the unwanted child until such time as he or she can be adopted or becomes an adult, whichever. We have rafts of public and private charities just itching to help her get medical care, psychological counseling, food, diapers, baby clothes, what-have-you. We have the Medicaid system practically going out and beating the bushes to look for new applicants for all-expenses-paid medical care. We have the SNAP program, WIC program and community food banks looking to dump groceries and baby formula on her. We have the Section 8 program looking to give her a place to live. We have so many freaking programs to educate single mothers and help them get jobs I don't even know where to start cataloguing them. God knows any HINT of stigmatizing the little whore for spreading her legs for every guy who waves a bottle of tequila at her is greeted with all the enthusiasm of a fart in an elevator these days.

So exactly what "support structure" do these bitches NEED that they don't have to keep them from killing their innocent, defenseless babies? I'd really like to know.

Misogynist.

Yes, because all women are whining bitches who can't control their own twats. Oh, wait, no. That would just be you and your ilk.

Who's the REAL misogynist here? The one who hates lazy whores who make other women look bad by association, or the one who assumes that hatred of lazy whores is hatred of all women? Doesn't look to ME like I'M the one who spread my description around to all women.

If you expect me to apologize to the likes of you for my characterization, you should first try to stop resembling it so much.

How do you know what she ressembles? You're mistaken at best...you have no idea..

Talk about generalising....

 

[Dr Grump]

Meanwhile, we’ve got radical rightists in Mississippi attempting to violate the rule of law and the right to privacy of the state’s citizens:

Mississippi to decide if fertilized egg is a human being - Yahoo! News

Sad state of affairs when amoral ignoramuses are allowed to characterize the protection of human life as a "privacy issue". Last time I checked, the state decides on the legality of every OTHER killing performed under its jurisdiction, and no flatliner liberals are hollering that it "violates the right to privacy" of the ex-wife who kills her husband for the insurance.

What really boggles my mind is that these fools won't even understand the parallel.

What would boggle the mind (if it wasn't you saying it) is that you think there is a parallel...

 

[JohnA]

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Where is the man held up to that same standard in your argument?
If we got tough on dead beat Dads, required them to take care of their kids instead of handling 90% of those cases in civil cases and there was a current boat load of them in prison and on the chain gangs the abortion rate would go down.
FINANCES is the #1 reason women, in those cases as finances does not play a role in the over 30 age group-convenience is their excuse, abort their babies. Not saying that is right but what financial risk do most fathers have with the current legal system we have concerning them being responsible for their kids?
The men get a FREE PASS in this debate.

We are teaching them to be "deadbeat dads". The gov't schools don't allow anything taught about "morality", but want children to know sexual positions and acts. They are "encouraged" to experiment: if the girl wants to have sex, she will be taken to/told to go to Planned Parenthood or a similar clinic for "birth control" (the clinic is really in the business of abortions, so the methods/processes for birth control may not be clear, in some cases, defective condoms have been handed out). If for some strange, strange reason, if she does turn up pregnant (sex didn't have anything to do with it), the same clinic is there for her, all to willing to give her an abortion (without notifying her parents). The gov't pays for it, and everyone is happy (until she figures out that she murdered her own child).
How much responsibility is being taught to boys???? NONE. They are not allowed to act like boys: they can't roughhouse on the play ground (they will be medicated), they can't speak how they think (that is too harsh), they have to act like little girls, EXCEPT when it comes to sex.
We can't teach children morals, one parent in 10,000 might have an objection, so the "gov't" teaches them to be imoral tools, and that they have absolutely no other value than to be used as a sexual toy/ or to use others as a sexual toy. And then we are told that these "children" are our future and we must invest more money in their education.

What do you suggest to teach boys responsibilty?

defective condoms have been handed out).

STATS to back that up please

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it comes down to inability to care for the child

Generally, the man is not there financially or emotionally. A child means giving up your job, financial burden or there may already be other children

If you want to cut down on abortions....you need to provide women with some kind of support structure.

Otherwise...quit your bitching

I prefer to cut down on abortions by women not risking pregnancy until they are ready to love, support, and cherish a child. And if they do risk a pregnancy, to take responsibility for their actions and love, support, and cherish the child anyway or give it life and a chance to be loved, supported, and cherished by a couple who wants the child.

Where is the man held up to that same standard in your argument?
If we got tough on dead beat Dads, required them to take care of their kids instead of handling 90% of those cases in civil cases and there was a current boat load of them in prison and on the chain gangs the abortion rate would go down.
FINANCES is the #1 reason women, in those cases as finances does not play a role in the over 30 age group-convenience is their excuse, abort their babies. Not saying that is right but what financial risk do most fathers have with the current legal system we have concerning them being responsible for their kids?
The men get a FREE PASS in this debate.

Support of the child is a separate topic but the best chance the child has to avoid poverty is to have a responsible mom AND dad in the home. Except in cases of forcible rape, the woman has 100% choice in whether to risk pregnancy. In my opinion, the responsible woman gets married to a responsible man who is willing and able to support a family BEFORE she risks preganancy.