Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[Dr.Drock]

Whats the difference? Those against abortion want to force someone else to host a living being. FORCE is the key word here.
And they will bicker and fight and stamp their feet and wave their fists because they want the government to control what we CHOOSE to do with our bodies when it comes to hosting another human being.
Dumb analogy maybe, but it fits with MY opinion, to which I am entitled just like the rest of the BULLSHIT going on in here.

Like I said..tough shit.

*backs up, kicks dirt on thread, spits again*

Because humans are on a different scale than tapeworms and every other living thing. I know a lot people who smack their dog on the back but would never their kid (i wouldn't do either but I digress). I'd like to think you'd take more thought in terms of whether or not to have an abortion than you would whether or not to have tapeworms removed.

I agree with you that I'm ok with an abortion up to a certain time period, but relating a fetus to tapeworms is dumb, and I'm glad you admitted that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well first of all, doctors are usually pretty law-abiding people so I'd say about 95-99% of doctors will stop on their own.

In the case of back-alley abortions, the doctor will get reported and discovered.

I'm not seeing why you think it's unenforceable. That opinion has no basis in reality.

In my personal opinion, it should be the mother's decision (or she can consent to have someone designated instead, since she probably couldnt make an unpressured decision during delivery) as to what do do in an extreme emergency (aka who do we save, the mother or the child).

done. easy. submit.

"in the health interest of the mother"
How do you stop that?
What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
Real world.

I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.

How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ? If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.

You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really. If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.

I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.

Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.

The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.

You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

 

[Vanquish]

"in the health interest of the mother"
How do you stop that?
What doctor is going to step forward and state it was not done in the best interest of the mother?
Do you know that is the standard in criminal court?
Real world.

I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.

How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ? If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.

You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really. If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.

I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.

Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.

The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.

You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.

Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!

While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.

Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy. And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.

But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well ****. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.

Huh????? You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm a lawyer who does criminal defense as a healthy part of my practice...so uhm I think I have a basis in reality.

How do you stop "in the interest of the mother" ? If you don't know, that language you're referring to is in one of the companion cases to Roe v. Wade, Webster, btw.

You stop that, by explainting that the "interest of the mother" is a life or death decision. It's as simple as that. No, really. If it's a choice between the mother and the child, which one do we have a greater chance of saving? Most mothers would rather save their child rather than themselves. But let's say they don't want to. The point is you'd rather save the person who has the greater chance.

I don't know why you're building this one part into some mission impossible. It's quite easy to understand.

Even the Catholic church has a history of protecting the mother in these type of circumstances. Read up. Here.

The problem isn't how do you enforce a law like this...it's getting people to value human life when they can't see it hidden away in a woman's womb.

You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.

Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!

While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.

Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy. And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.

But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well ****. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.

Huh????? You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.

Of course there are standards in medicine.
But you ignore my factual scenario.
How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.

 

[Gadawg73]

Even Pro Life Rick Santorum stated that medical exception reasons are "phony" and John McCain called the medical exception for late term abortions are "being stretched to mean almost anything".
Case closed. Everyone associated with this knows full well the abortion doctors will go to any means necessary to make a health exception stick when they perform abortions.
I hate it, despise it but do not stick my head in the sand when I know full well it has worked that way for over 100 years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody will ever stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion. Ever. Its HER BODY.

I hate this thread.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the BABY HAS ITS OWN BODY. I hope this thread helps people realize that.

Y'all can scream and wave your tiny fists in fury all you ******* want. Its THE WOMANS BODY. PERIOD. Nothing you say. No pics you show. No scientific evidence. No demands that a coma shaped being to be allowed to be hosted against the hosts will. The religious aspects. The fighting about rights of a sperm that got in the egg. NOTHING you say will EVER change the fact that as women, WE CHOOSE. Period. End of story. So yell, holler, stamp your little feetsies all you want. Won't change a damn thing.

Now I'm out of here because this thread SUCKS.

Yes, you can keep up your vain, futile attempts to introduce facts, logic, and science into this debate, but the truth is going to continue to be whatever the infanticide crowd needs it to be to assuage their guilt and neuroses, and that's that. Just accept that we INVENT truth in this society, rather than discovering it. Nothing you say. No pictures you show. No evidence you produce, is going to EVER convince the baby-killers that doing what's convenient for THEM is not the high road to morality, because to them, their personal, selfish happiness IS morality. (Morality, like truth, is something that is invented, rather than discovered.) Nothing you say will EVER change the fact that self-hating, baby-killing women CHOOSE what reality is, and ignore anything that might indicate that there's a reality beyond what THEY want. Period. End of story. State the truth, present facts, study science all you want. Won't change a damned thing.

And Grace is out of here now, until the NEXT time she comes weaseling around this "sucky" thread, trying to justify her monstrously unjustifiable choice and whining about how "attacked" she is because people dare to think that what she did was evil, instead of accepting the manifestly obvious fact that it MUST have been moral, because it was what she wanted to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But before I leave...I DEMAND that if your doctors ever tell you that you have a ******* tape worm...IT HAS RIGHTS. You are to LEAVE it there and let it FEED off you. After all. Its alive, aint it? And yes, I am comparing a fetus to a tape worm. Don't like it? Tough shit.

*spit*

Before you run back here YET AGAIN to tell us how we all suck for not approving of whatever you want to do, and how you're OUT OF HERE (again), I DEMAND that you learn the difference between a human and a tape worm. It's one thing that you flatly reject the scientific fact that a fetus is a living human being simply because you don't want to accept that you're every bit as evil and disgusting a creature as your rapist, but there should still be limits on the amount of willful scientific ignorance you're prepared to espouse in public in service of your selfish self-justification.

And yes, I'm comparing you to a rapist. Don't like it? Tough shit. Try leaving for REAL, instead of for tantrum effect. That's what someone who REALLY believed she was right, rather than someone desperately trying to rationalize herself, would do.

Be sure to whine and cry to someone about how "abused" you were when you went back to the thread you've flounced out of three times so far, Drama Queen. Boo ******* hoo.

 

[Vanquish]

You can find a doctor to claim "in the best interest of the mother" just about anywhere.
I also work criminal defense cases as a licensed PI for 30 years.
And I also do civil litigation and wrongful death. I used to do a lot of comp cases 25 years ago.
Counselor, how come you do not acknowledge the FACT that doctor's opinion varies like the wind? Don't you know that you can pay doctors to say whatever you want? Respectfully, if you don't then you haven't practiced very long.
I have worked hundreds of cases where one doctor comes in and testifies "The standard of care Dr. Kilgore gave was excellent for XYZ reasons. The doctor did everything right and nothing wrong." Next doctor comes in and testifies "Doctor Kilgore was clearly negligent and his negligence and lack of following XYZ prodcedures, etc., etc., caused the patient to die."
Now which is it counselor? Fact is doctors BS all the time and that BS stands up most all of the time. The prosecution will need another doctor to state that the mother of the aborted fetus was not in medical danger and the doctor that claimed she was was wrong in his diagnosis.
If you do not know that there are thousands of doctors out there that would do this and do it daily then take a look at the plaintiffs docket your next trip to the civil clerk's office and watch TV one afternoon and see the dozens of Personal Injury lawyers soliciting cases for fender benders where there is nothing wrong with 90% of the "injured".
Doctors fuel those soft tissue cases and 9 times out of ten there are no real injuries. What, doctors "doctoring" up the file? Surely you jest!!
But back to making abortion illegal. A doctor to performthe abortion "in the best interest of the mother's medical safety" would be just as easy to find as the ones the personal injury lawyers send their clients to. And they will stamp that on every abortion they perform. And the state prosecutor would need ANOTHER DOCTOR to state that it was not a medical necessity.
Now counselor, what doctor is going to do that and how credible would they be to a jury when that doctor NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?

First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.

Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!

While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.

Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy. And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.

But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well ****. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.

Huh????? You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.

Of course there are standards in medicine.
But you ignore my factual scenario.
How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.

Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.

Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.

YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there. And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system. You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.

I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.

 

[Gadawg73]

First of all, you're acting as if there aren't standards and procedures in medicine. Respectfully, if you think there aren't rules in medicine then YOU haven't been practicing very long.

Second, if you read exactly what I said, instead of broadening the definition of "interest of the mother" I was VERY specific - when the mother's life is in danger or the child's is. THAT'S a very very tiny set of circumstances...for which there are...wait for it....wait for it...rules and standard practices!

While doctors can differ surely....whether someone is in a life and death situation is much less prone to such a difference of opinion. Either you are or you aren't.

Your condescending blathering about expert witnesses and doctors backing each other up notwithstanding, yes, they do do that. But that doesnt mean that you can't get one to testify against another. They do that too, buddy. And proving it in a court of law is what you have to do to get justice. Your little anecdotes are one-sided and self-serving....all the while you word things like you've set up some inescapable logic trap. NEWS FLASH. You haven't.

But again, that doesn't mean that you can't outlaw abortion. That's like saying...well ****. we can't stop people from stabbing each other...so let's just let people stab each other.

Huh????? You're fundamentally wrong about how law works and how it operates.

Of course there are standards in medicine.
But you ignore my factual scenario.
How can a doctor claim there was NO need for the abortion when HE NEVER SAW THE PATIENT?
You have not stated one fact to rebut anything or any factual scenario I presented.
If you do not know that ALL medical malpractice cases have TOTALLY opposite diagnosis of standard of care then you know nothing about medical legal issues.
If you deny that in worker's compensation cases one doctor gets up and testifies "the claimant is fine and can go back to work" and then the next doctor comes in and states "the claimant is 80% disabled and can not work" that proves without any doubt you have never, ever done any trial work in the civil courts.
That sir goes on in EVERY worker's compensation case across the nation daily.
All the while you naively claim that doctors do not doctor their records.
Try again and show me something, anything that shows that doctors do not offer opinions to fit their clients' needs.
Sort of like attorneys but without the doctor's various opionions to fit their client's needs the attorneys have NO case.
I have been doing this 30 years. 5000 cases with over 1000 jury trials.

Stroke your epeen a little more. Something useful might come out.

Of course I know that doctors conflict. I'm the one who explained that in MY POST.

YOU SEEM TO IGNORE the fact that making it illegal means that 99% of doctors will stop doing it. That's pretty effective enforcement right there. And in the cases where you have a doctor claiming that a mother's life is in danger, it's going to be pretty hard medically to cheat the system. You keep making these sweeping comments about medical litigation in general, but fail to speak about SPECIFIC circumstances.

I'm pretty glad that you were never a PI for one of my cases. You can't seem to hold a train of thought very well.

I was questioning whether you were a lawyer or not but your dancing around like a monkey on fire, twisting and distorting the truth have convinced me you are.
I gave you SPECIFICS such as medical malpractice cases where YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCTOR'S AFFIDAVIT that there was negligence to even file your case.
Now tell me counselor, are you denying that in a mdeical malpractice case, IN ALL medical malpractice cases you have a doctor stating that the standard of care was not up to speed and that is what caused the malpractice and that the insurance carrier of the doctor will have their doctor come in and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE?
If they didn't then how do THEY DEFEND THE DAMN CASE?
Same with worker's compensation cases. I gave SPECIFICS on that also.
And from the companion case YOU BROUGHT UP Doe which proves my point 100%:
That case broadly defined the health exemption so that any level of distress or discomfort would qualify and gave the abortionist the final say over what qualified:
"The medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age, relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to "health".
Because the application of the health exemption was left to the abortionist, as I have been schooling you on here, any legislation directly prohibitng any abortion is practically UNENFORCEABLE.
And it was prior history of doctors ALWAYS DOING THIS, that prompted the ruling in the first place.
Fairly simple for anyone that is interested IN FACT.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

I oppose abortion just like I oppose drug use and cigarette smoking.
I agree with you that women should "have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own."
Without GOVERNMENT telling them what to do and MEN having to be responsible for their actions which is what you advocate

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens. After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.

Dunno why that amazes me. The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them. We used to call them "cads".

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

Because that's worked so well in the past, right?

 

[AllieBaba]

Speak of the devil.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens. After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.

Dunno why that amazes me. The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them. We used to call them "cads".

Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......

And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.

Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens. After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.

Dunno why that amazes me. The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them. We used to call them "cads".

I oppose abortion. Where have I ever stated I am pro abortion?
Try again.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah but gadawg thinks stupid females are not capable of following the law, or making the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, if abortion is made illegal.

What amazes me is people who support killing babies and who claim it's because of their love of WOMEN are almost always dismissive of women and think women don't have the ability to navigate this issue legally on their own.

Maybe gadawg and company just think that all women hate their own femaleness too much to ever think of pregnancy as anything but having their bodies hijacked by malicious aliens. After all, their side of the aisle DOES have NOW.

Dunno why that amazes me. The kind of men who support abortion and claim it's because they "love women" are actually saying that they love women who are stupid, easily-led immoral sluts, and they don't want anything to dry up the supply of them. We used to call them "cads".

Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......

And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.

Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....

Ah, give her a break Doc.
She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
Because she has no facts to work with.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course you're pro abortion. You're willing to lie to promote it.

We all know the best way to prevent baby homicide is to kill those suckers off!! Woo hoo!

 

[AllieBaba]

No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.

You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.

Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.

 

[Moonglow]

Yeah, there is a whole group of men out there professing they support abortion because they 'love' women. Yeah, good one Cesspit, you're on to a winner there......

And we all know that any woman who gets knocked up but doesn't want a child is an easily led immoral slut.

Dunno what's worse - you posting such drivel, or you believing it....

Ah, give her a break Doc.
She is making, or attempting to make, her point based on emotion, not fact.
Because she has no facts to work with.

No, we post facts, and stats, and you slimy pro-abortionists ignore them, and pretend your pretend scenarios somehow hold water.

You know, the scenarios where legalized abortion reduces child abuse, and results in fewer abortions, and saves women.

Still waiting for the *facts* and the studies that back up those *scientific* assertions.

Like how God created a monthly action which kills ova?