Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[Conservative65]

Point well taken. More hypocrisy of the left. That's shy when we talke back power, we implement these regulation regardless of what they want.

Nope. Hypocrisy is saying one thing but thinking something else. I say that women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices. And I think the exact same thing.

You're willing to give the woman the sole choice.

Over the use of her own body? Who else would I give that choice to? You, making the decision for her?

Um, no. You're nobody in this scenario.

Do you require sole responsibility of that woman with all aspects and results of that choice? In other words, if she chooses to do something and can't afford it, are you saying the rest of us don't have to fund it for her? Unless you are, that's hypocritical because what you're saying is others should butt out except when the woman needs financial help.

Would you recognize a woman's right to choose if she didn't take any public benefits?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no.

So your entire argument is irrelevant to your stance on a woman's right to choose. Convenient. Your argument is also rrelevant to my stance on a woman's right to choose.

Both go together. If you can't see that, please don't have kids. We have enough already with retards as parents. Don't pollute society any more with more stupid kids you'd raise.

 

[Skylar]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

She chooses whether or not she's going to remain pregnant. Its her body.

You are insisting that YOU get to decide for her, YOU get to decide what choices she has available to her.

But you don't. You're nobody. You decide nothing.

See how that works?

A nobody is the kind of person that makes a choice, tells others to butt out, then demand those told to butt out pay for the results of the choice. There are plenty of those.

A nobody who has no say in how a woman reproduces. And you've already admitted that your entire argument is irrelevant to both a woman's right to choose...and your own perspective on abortion.

If even you don't give a shit about the criteria you're arguing about, you can certainly understand why I don't either.

 

[Conservative65]

Then, why is the responsibility for the results of those choices belong to those of us told to butt out of the choice when it was made. For example, a woman CHOOSES to have a child for whatever reason. When she can't afford to fund the choice she made, why are the rest of us forced to do it for something we were told was none of our business?
[/qjuote]

Because the people in your


If you want her to have the choice, give her the total responsibility for the results, too.

Mandating an ultrasound isn't denying her an abortion.

It is, however, interfering with a woman and her doctor on which medical decisions are best for her. That's best determined by the woman and her doctor. Not some old white guy.

Sad thing is when the woman makes a choice with her body she can't afford, the old white guys are the ones she demands pay the taxes to fund it.

So if the State chooses to pay for Similac, a woman doesn't get to choose the use of her own body?

Huh. I don't think that's how rights work.

If someone else is paying for something you can't afford, you have the choice not to use it. Nothing says you have to. You can always buy what you like. Oh, that's right. You can't afford it and think you have the right to tell others what you want even though you're not paying for it. You don't. It doesn't work that way.

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble? No wonder the country is so fucked up. Idiots like you live here. If a woman chooses to have kids and can't support them, they'll do without as far as I'm concerned. Her kids, her responsibility.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Hypocrisy is saying one thing but thinking something else. I say that women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices. And I think the exact same thing.

You're willing to give the woman the sole choice.

Over the use of her own body? Who else would I give that choice to? You, making the decision for her?

Um, no. You're nobody in this scenario.

Do you require sole responsibility of that woman with all aspects and results of that choice? In other words, if she chooses to do something and can't afford it, are you saying the rest of us don't have to fund it for her? Unless you are, that's hypocritical because what you're saying is others should butt out except when the woman needs financial help.

Would you recognize a woman's right to choose if she didn't take any public benefits?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no.

So your entire argument is irrelevant to your stance on a woman's right to choose. Convenient. Your argument is also rrelevant to my stance on a woman's right to choose.

Both go together.

Obviously they don't. As even if a woman isn't on public benefits and you pay for nothing....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Demonstrating how gloriously irrelevant they are, even in your own mind.

And certainly they have no relevance in the law.

 

[Conservative65]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

She chooses whether or not she's going to remain pregnant. Its her body.

You are insisting that YOU get to decide for her, YOU get to decide what choices she has available to her.

But you don't. You're nobody. You decide nothing.

See how that works?

A nobody is the kind of person that makes a choice, tells others to butt out, then demand those told to butt out pay for the results of the choice. There are plenty of those.

A nobody who has no say in how a woman reproduces. And you've already admitted that your entire argument is irrelevant to both a woman's right to choose...and your own perspective on abortion.

If even you don't give a shit about the criteria you're arguing about, you can certainly understand why I don't either.

You don't give a shit about responsibility. That's obvious. You want choice but after that nothing. While I'm opposed to abortion, I would have made an exception when it came to whether or not you were born. Maybe you were aborted and what was left is what you became.

 

[rightwinger]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

So a child is a consequence....a punishment for sexual activity

 

[Conservative65]

You're willing to give the woman the sole choice.

Over the use of her own body? Who else would I give that choice to? You, making the decision for her?

Um, no. You're nobody in this scenario.

Do you require sole responsibility of that woman with all aspects and results of that choice? In other words, if she chooses to do something and can't afford it, are you saying the rest of us don't have to fund it for her? Unless you are, that's hypocritical because what you're saying is others should butt out except when the woman needs financial help.

Would you recognize a woman's right to choose if she didn't take any public benefits?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no.

So your entire argument is irrelevant to your stance on a woman's right to choose. Convenient. Your argument is also rrelevant to my stance on a woman's right to choose.

Both go together.

Obviously they don't. As even if a woman isn't on public benefits and you pay for nothing....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Demonstrating how gloriously irrelevant they are, even in your own mind.

And certainly they have no relevance in the law.

I can't deny someone something if I don't know they did it. That you think that can be done only goes to prove you're nothing more than a baby killer.

 

[Skylar]

It is, however, interfering with a woman and her doctor on which medical decisions are best for her. That's best determined by the woman and her doctor. Not some old white guy.

So if the State chooses to pay for Similac, a woman doesn't get to choose the use of her own body?

Huh. I don't think that's how rights work.

If someone else is paying for something you can't afford, you have the choice not to use it. Nothing says you have to. You can always buy what you like. Oh, that's right. You can't afford it and think you have the right to tell others what you want even though you're not paying for it. You don't. It doesn't work that way.

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble?

You've already told us that even if a woman is on no benefits nor receives any.....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Making all your 'public benefits' nonsense merely babble.

As even you don't give a shit about it. Which is convenient. As neither do I. Nor does the law.

 

[Conservative65]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

So a child is a consequence....a punishment for sexual activity

It's a result that's the responsibility of those that CHOSE to have sex. Baby killers like you treat it like one that you're willing to kill.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone else is paying for something you can't afford, you have the choice not to use it. Nothing says you have to. You can always buy what you like. Oh, that's right. You can't afford it and think you have the right to tell others what you want even though you're not paying for it. You don't. It doesn't work that way.

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble?

You've already told us that even if a woman is on no benefits nor receives any.....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Making all your 'public benefits' nonsense merely babble.

As even you don't give a shit about it. Which is convenient. As neither do I. Nor does the law.

Where did I say that? I've addressed those who do. If someone makes a choice with her body and I don't know it, I can't deny her anything. Apparently you are what's left from an abortion where the brains because shit.

 

[Skylar]

Over the use of her own body? Who else would I give that choice to? You, making the decision for her?

Um, no. You're nobody in this scenario.

Would you recognize a woman's right to choose if she didn't take any public benefits?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no.

So your entire argument is irrelevant to your stance on a woman's right to choose. Convenient. Your argument is also rrelevant to my stance on a woman's right to choose.

Both go together.

Obviously they don't. As even if a woman isn't on public benefits and you pay for nothing....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Demonstrating how gloriously irrelevant they are, even in your own mind.

And certainly they have no relevance in the law.

I can't deny someone something if I don't know they did it.

So anyone woman that you 'don't know' is on public benefits should be able to choose for herself then? Or is your latest piece of pseudo-legal babble just more nonsense to be discarded like your last piece of pseudo-legal babble?

That you think that can be done only goes to prove you're nothing more than a baby killer.

And with you having contradicted and ignored your own reasoning numerous times in the span of only a handful of minutes, what you think really doesn't matter.

As even you ignore you.

 

[rightwinger]

It is, however, interfering with a woman and her doctor on which medical decisions are best for her. That's best determined by the woman and her doctor. Not some old white guy.

So if the State chooses to pay for Similac, a woman doesn't get to choose the use of her own body?

Huh. I don't think that's how rights work.

If someone else is paying for something you can't afford, you have the choice not to use it. Nothing says you have to. You can always buy what you like. Oh, that's right. You can't afford it and think you have the right to tell others what you want even though you're not paying for it. You don't. It doesn't work that way.

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble? No wonder the country is so fucked up. Idiots like you live here. If a woman chooses to have kids and can't support them, they'll do without as far as I'm concerned. Her kids, her responsibility.

She is being responsible

She got pregnant and is responsible for what happens next

If she decides she is incapable of raising a child for the next eighteen years, her responsible choice is to end the pregnancy

 

[Conservative65]

Since that won't happen or until it does, no.

So your entire argument is irrelevant to your stance on a woman's right to choose. Convenient. Your argument is also rrelevant to my stance on a woman's right to choose.

Both go together.

Obviously they don't. As even if a woman isn't on public benefits and you pay for nothing....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Demonstrating how gloriously irrelevant they are, even in your own mind.

And certainly they have no relevance in the law.

I can't deny someone something if I don't know they did it.

So anyone woman that you 'don't know' is on public benefits should be able to choose for herself then? Or is your latest piece of pseudo-legal babble just more nonsense to be discarded like your last piece of pseudo-legal babble?

The first question can't be answered. If you don't know that they are, you don't what choice they made. That's like saying you could respond to what I believe if I wasn't on here saying it. You're really that stupid.

That you think that can be done only goes to prove you're nothing more than a baby killer.

And with you having contradicted and ignored your own reasoning numerous times in the span of only a handful of minutes, what you think really doesn't matter.

As even you ignore you.

I ignore retards like you that should have been aborted.

 

[rightwinger]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

So a child is a consequence....a punishment for sexual activity

It's a result that's the responsibility of those that CHOSE to have sex. Baby killers like you treat it like one that you're willing to kill.

Sex is a normal human activity.....been going on for hundreds of thousands of years

Raising a child is a major responsibliity ....something not to be taken lightly

It is a woman's choice

 

[Conservative65]

If someone else is paying for something you can't afford, you have the choice not to use it. Nothing says you have to. You can always buy what you like. Oh, that's right. You can't afford it and think you have the right to tell others what you want even though you're not paying for it. You don't. It doesn't work that way.

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble? No wonder the country is so fucked up. Idiots like you live here. If a woman chooses to have kids and can't support them, they'll do without as far as I'm concerned. Her kids, her responsibility.

She is being responsible

She got pregnant and is responsible for what happens next

If she decides she is incapable of raising a child for the next eighteen years, her responsible choice is to end the pregnancy

Killing something because you don't like the results isn't being responsible. That's the same as saying if you can't make your house payment, you can burn it down to get rid of it.

A responsible person accepts what happened due to an action and killing it is not accepting it. Perhaps someone should have been more "responsible" for you when she got pregnant if you catch what I'm saying. Apparently that was too much to ask..

 

[Skylar]

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble?

You've already told us that even if a woman is on no benefits nor receives any.....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Making all your 'public benefits' nonsense merely babble.

As even you don't give a shit about it. Which is convenient. As neither do I. Nor does the law.

Where did I say that?

Right here:

So if someone is not on any public benefits, they should be able to choose their own reproductive freedom?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no. With her sole choice comes sole responsibility.

So no, you wouldn't acknowledge a woman's right to choose even if she wasn't on benefits. Making your entire argument irrelevant. As even you ignore you.

 

[Conservative65]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

So a child is a consequence....a punishment for sexual activity

It's a result that's the responsibility of those that CHOSE to have sex. Baby killers like you treat it like one that you're willing to kill.

Sex is a normal human activity.....been going on for hundreds of thousands of years

Raising a child is a major responsibliity ....something not to be taken lightly

It is a woman's choice

Then it's a woman's responsibility. Glad to see you agree that the taxpayers shouldn't be required to support a woman's kid she chose to have. When should my taxes go down?

 

[Skylar]

None of which has a thing to do with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And your glorious irrelevance to the same process.

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble? No wonder the country is so fucked up. Idiots like you live here. If a woman chooses to have kids and can't support them, they'll do without as far as I'm concerned. Her kids, her responsibility.

She is being responsible

She got pregnant and is responsible for what happens next

If she decides she is incapable of raising a child for the next eighteen years, her responsible choice is to end the pregnancy

Killing something because you don't like the results isn't being responsible. That's the same as saying if you can't make your house payment, you can burn it down to get rid of it.

That's a decision for a woman to make for herself. Not for you to make for her.

That you disagree is meaningless. As you play no role in her decision. She makes the decision herself. You decide nothing for her.

 

[Skylar]

So you support a woman's right to choose?

Choose what? She CHOSE to have sex. EVERYTHING has a consequence for an action....have sex possibly get pregnant,drive drunk possibly kill someone,shoot someone possibly kill them...amazing how you can take the life in the 2nd and 3rd one and be sent to prison but not the first. Guess a babies innocent isn't as worth as much as an adults.

So a child is a consequence....a punishment for sexual activity

It's a result that's the responsibility of those that CHOSE to have sex. Baby killers like you treat it like one that you're willing to kill.

Sex is a normal human activity.....been going on for hundreds of thousands of years

Raising a child is a major responsibliity ....something not to be taken lightly

It is a woman's choice

Then it's a woman's responsibility. Glad to see you agree that the taxpayers shouldn't be required to support a woman's kid she chose to have. When should my taxes go down?

So if a woman isn't on any benefits....she should have reproductive rights to abort?

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying results of a choice have nothing to do with the choice?

I'm saying that she has the right to make her own reproductive choices.

All the rest is your own babble, citing you, talking to you.

So thinking someone should be responsible for their own choices is babble?

You've already told us that even if a woman is on no benefits nor receives any.....you'd still deny her the right to choose for herself. Making all your 'public benefits' nonsense merely babble.

As even you don't give a shit about it. Which is convenient. As neither do I. Nor does the law.

Where did I say that?

Right here:

So if someone is not on any public benefits, they should be able to choose their own reproductive freedom?

Since that won't happen or until it does, no. With her sole choice comes sole responsibility.

So no, you wouldn't acknowledge a woman's right to choose even if she wasn't on benefits. Making your entire argument irrelevant. As even you ignore you.

So you misrepresent what I said? Not surprised. If someone is not on benefits, I don't know what choices they make and can't say anything about what someone does if I don't know they are doing it. As for those on benefits, until they start supporting their own, no they don't get a choice. I can only address those I know of not those I don't know of. You're asking me to read minds.