I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
So a couple of people answered. But again - if an expecting mother is assualted and loses her baby...when/should the assaulter be charged with murder?
Cause my opinion is, even though I’m against abortion in all cases except rape, incest (isn’t this just rape most of the time?), and Mother’s life in danger....I would think the legal definition of this (hopefully based off of science and not politics) is where the line should be drawn on abortion.
I wish there were no abortions. But until the work is out in on the front end to stop the need (for the most part) and since it’s been decided by law already with no change as to why it should be challenged....no new information.... then it seems to me we should be allowing science to tell us where the line is. And science should be the only ones to move that line.
Its disturbing to me the way some talk about it though. In an effort to support women they are degrading human life in my opinion. There is no need to be so brash about it. Abortion shouldn’t be the a decision that is the last option. It’s pretty sad really, imo, because there are so many things that can be done to prevent the need at all.
Great post
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
So a couple of people answered. But again - if an expecting mother is assualted and loses her baby...when/should the assaulter be charged with murder?
Cause my opinion is, even though I’m against abortion in all cases except rape, incest (isn’t this just rape most of the time?), and Mother’s life in danger....I would think the legal definition of this (hopefully based off of science and not politics) is where the line should be drawn on abortion.
I wish there were no abortions. But until the work is out in on the front end to stop the need (for the most part) and since it’s been decided by law already with no change as to why it should be challenged....no new information.... then it seems to me we should be allowing science to tell us where the line is. And science should be the only ones to move that line.
Its disturbing to me the way some talk about it though. In an effort to support women they are degrading human life in my opinion. There is no need to be so brash about it. Abortion shouldn’t be the a decision that is the last option. It’s pretty sad really, imo, because there are so many things that can be done to prevent the need at all.
Great post
Except of course my typing on my iPhone sucks and so I make no sense sometimes
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
Here you are again huh? And it’s not on topic. And I admitted I took us off topic. So unsure what the fuck your point is other than digin being digin.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
Here you are again huh? And it’s not on topic. And I admitted I took us off topic. So unsure what the fuck your point is other than digin being digin.
Cant answer the question I guess then. Always about the poster, not the topic. Why is that I wonder?
Care to answer the question? I would like to here it.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
This is the point, which apparently is off topic because it maybe makes conservatives uncomfortable because there's no way to reasonably defend it.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
This is the point, which apparently is off topic because it maybe makes conservatives uncomfortable because there's no way to reasonably defend it.
The Republican Party's stance on abortion always brings to my mind this hypothetical conversation....
Young mother: I'm pregnant but have no means of raising a child. Can I get an abortion? Republican Asshole: Nooooo!!!!!!! You're not going to kill a BABY. What type of monster are you? Young Mother: Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I'll have the child. But can I have some money to help me raise the child? Republican Asshole: Oh you're going to have to talk to the Democrats about that one. I want the baby born, but it could die a week later for all I care.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
Here you are again huh? And it’s not on topic. And I admitted I took us off topic. So unsure what the fuck your point is other than digin being digin.
Cant answer the question I guess then. Always about the poster, not the topic. Why is that I wonder?
Care to answer the question? I would like to here it.
Not here. You want a pm? I don’t disagree that the right has been awful at ensuring people don’t need welfare. But again it’s not the topic here.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
This is the point, which apparently is off topic because it maybe makes conservatives uncomfortable because there's no way to reasonably defend it.
Perhaps you missed my post where I mentioned that the right not doing any of the potential preventative stuff...education, etc.
But as far as keeping people on welfare to get their vote...different topic.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
This is the point, which apparently is off topic because it maybe makes conservatives uncomfortable because there's no way to reasonably defend it.
The Republican Party's stance on abortion always brings to my mind this hypothetical conversation....
Young mother: I'm pregnant but have no means of raising a child. Can I get an abortion? Republican Asshole: Nooooo!!!!!!! You're not going to kill a BABY. What type of monster are you? Young Mother: Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I'll have the child. But can I have some money to help me raise the child? Republican Asshole: Oh you're going to have to talk to the Democrats about that one. I want the baby born, but it could die a week later for all I care.
This is some, perhaps s majority, but it is not all of people that are against abortion Nice touch with the “asshole” part. Effective. Wonder what could be added to the young mother or young father?
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
without that way of doing things , how can they grow the white, stupid and poor population to whip up to vote against self interest
True. I guess it’s the same as why the democrats keep promoting a welfare state that keeps people in need of the government. Continue using to create voters generation after generations. All about power instead of solving problems
So, you see the deliberate disenfranchisement and under-education promulgated by the right to be the moral and practical equivalent of the social safety net of the left?
I see the social safety net of the left resulting in disenfranchisement and under-education. I am only assuming it’s on purpose for the votes to keep rolling in. And it was in response to someone saying the right wants to stop abortion so there are more uneducated people to vote for them.
I know what it was in response to. What is your evidence that the social safety net leads to disenfranchisement and under-education?
You are getting off topic here. I know I brought it up first, but this really isn’t the thread for it.
Completely on topic. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
The right doesn't want to fund public education as whole. They want to cut funding for vets. They want to force people to have children they cant support but dont want to offer support for those children.
This is the point, which apparently is off topic because it maybe makes conservatives uncomfortable because there's no way to reasonably defend it.
The Republican Party's stance on abortion always brings to my mind this hypothetical conversation....
Young mother: I'm pregnant but have no means of raising a child. Can I get an abortion? Republican Asshole: Nooooo!!!!!!! You're not going to kill a BABY. What type of monster are you? Young Mother: Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I'll have the child. But can I have some money to help me raise the child? Republican Asshole: Oh you're going to have to talk to the Democrats about that one. I want the baby born, but it could die a week later for all I care.
This is some, perhaps s majority, but it is not all of people that are against abortion Nice touch with the “asshole” part. Effective. Wonder what could be added to the young mother or young father?
Oh don't be so sensitive. The character in this little four-line play is an asshole that takes the high moral ground of "how dare you kill a baby" while not really giving a fuck about underprivileged babies. As you said, not all, but perhaps the majority of anti-abortion people are like this.
Mabey in very rare circumstances. If there is a heartbeat - No! Over 60 million abortions in the Unite States since 1973, who knows what that number is worldwide, Holy moly that's a lot of lives that never had a chance. Promote disipline, & responsibility. Have control over thy pecker. If a mother cannot support the baby herself encourage adoption whenever possible. If a human embryo is not considered a life in the womb, what is it then a pimple?
There is a big difference between saving a life and supporting one. I support the improvement of both, but I think one clearly takes the cake of importance.
Post edited by drakeheuer14 on
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
Mabey in very rare circumstances. If there is a heartbeat - No! Over 60 million abortions in the Unite States since 1973, who knows what that number is worldwide, Holy moly that's a lot of lives that never had a chance. Promote disipline, & responsibility. Have control over thy pecker. If a mother cannot support the baby herself encourage adoption whenever possible. If its not a life in the womb, what is it then a pimple?
You know, I think you're right, but we need to take it further. I look at the men who swear celibacy and the women who die with unfertilized eggs left inside them, and I think it's just a waste. We should have masturbation farms for men and fertilization farms for women, to prevent the tragedy that is lives that never had a chance.
As for the life in the womb - you're right, it is life, and I assume your purpose in parroting the "but it's alive!" message is to brutalize the act of abortion. I'll play. I believe in a woman's right to abort, kill, terminate, murder (pick a name, I don't care) a fetus if she so desires because it is her fucking fetus and not yours or mine.
Finally, I'm embarrassed to see you even suggest that 'peckers' have shown any ability to be controlled, or have acted with any discipline or sense of responsibility. Do your eyes and ears not function?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Yup it takes 2 to tango. I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in agreeance. But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh?? nice facetiousness. It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized. Unbelievable responce (benjs) I know benjs, expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
Shared with permission from a friend’s wall. _________________________ “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read: ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not. Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Shared with permission from a friend’s wall. _________________________ “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read: ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not. Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”
^^^ Brilliantly worded.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Shared with permission from a friend’s wall. _________________________ “Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read: ‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not. Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”
This is exactly my position as well, right up until the last sentence. I don’t view this as being what “pro choice” means; I view this as the only legal, ethical and logical interpretation of the situation. People can choose to be anti-choice but they have no legal, ethical or logical reason for that belief. The fact that it often contradicts other self-professed beliefs makes it even more hypocritical.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Mabey in very rare circumstances. If there is a heartbeat - No! Over 60 million abortions in the Unite States since 1973, who knows what that number is worldwide, Holy moly that's a lot of lives that never had a chance. Promote disipline, & responsibility. Have control over thy pecker. If a mother cannot support the baby herself encourage adoption whenever possible. If its not a life in the womb, what is it then a pimple?
You know, I think you're right, but we need to take it further. I look at the men who swear celibacy and the women who die with unfertilized eggs left inside them, and I think it's just a waste. We should have masturbation farms for men and fertilization farms for women, to prevent the tragedy that is lives that never had a chance.
As for the life in the womb - you're right, it is life, and I assume your purpose in parroting the "but it's alive!" message is to brutalize the act of abortion. I'll play. I believe in a woman's right to abort, kill, terminate, murder (pick a name, I don't care) a fetus if she so desires because it is her fucking fetus and not yours or mine.
Finally, I'm embarrassed to see you even suggest that 'peckers' have shown any ability to be controlled, or have acted with any discipline or sense of responsibility. Do your eyes and ears not function?
You got me Thinkin benjs. I'll help you out. You've got the man's seed and the woman's seeds. And they're just seeds until this happens. https://youtu.be/65BV5dXXxzM Yes this changes everything. So there's no reason to fertilize them all, that's ridiculous.
Yup it takes 2 to tango. I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in agreeance. But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh?? nice facetiousness. It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized. Unbelievable responce (benjs) I know benjs, expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
For a rapist it seems to be too much to ask to show self-control. For every other could-be mother, all it is, is simply none of your fucking business. That should be all we need collectively.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Yup it takes 2 to tango. I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in agreeance. But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh?? nice facetiousness. It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized. Unbelievable responce (benjs) I know benjs, expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
As for your 'not a developing embryo until it's fertilized' - I thought it was abundantly clear that I was joking. Looks like we both have unrealistic expectations of people.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Yup it takes 2 to tango. I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in agreeance. But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh?? nice facetiousness. It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized. Unbelievable responce (benjs) I know benjs, expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
As for your 'not a developing embryo until it's fertilized' - I thought it was abundantly clear that I was joking. Looks like we both have unrealistic expectations of people.
I was trying to get you to chuckle. I know you were being facetious. Masturbation firms made me chuckle. It's all good.
I get a kick out of all these supposed fiscal conservatives excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted babies. Especially those poorest of states. Makes a ton of sense.
I'm sure they are extra double excited to pay to take care of all those unwanted black and brown babies
They ain’t paying for shit. Pro-life until you’re born. They’ll just expect blue states to transfer their wealth and then spend it on tax breaks for the wealthy.
This is unfortunately true for a large portion of people that are anti-abortion. It’s stupid and mind boggling along with abstinence only sex education. I mean...you have an opportunity to educate and set people down a path that won’t require an abortion...it’s so obvious.
There isn't any setting rape and incest victims down that path, but the laws are making abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest illegal too.
BTW, IMO it's not pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Those terms seems misleading to me, particularly because nobody is pro-abortion. It's pro-choice and anti-choice.
Oh and honestly I don’t care what label you want to call it. I didn’t fix it when you use your terms, don’t pretend like yours are the only right ones. That’s fucking narcissistic.
What in the hell are you talking about?? I said IN MY OPINION.... that those terms seem misleading TO ME.... How in the fuck did I just get accused of pretending like mine are the only right ones and of being narcissistic using that kind of language?? Are you just looking for reasons to trash me or what?
Not not looking, just reading.
Not closely enough I guess? Or are you going to call out everyone for stating their opinions that you don't agree with and call them narcissistic? Or just me?
Including the entire thread. But fair enough. I’ll own this. You did say IMO. So it was probably too harsh for that. Letting past discussion here where people focus so much in the labels and arguing what other people should use. So I’m sorry for the comment for that one.
keep your boy digin in line though.
That's some solid peacemaking Cincy, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
It's the left who typically wants to fund schools properly and have everyone get a good education. It's the right who typically wants to cut school funds. So your claim is complete BS.
Care to answer the question? I would like to here it.
Young mother: I'm pregnant but have no means of raising a child. Can I get an abortion?
Republican Asshole: Nooooo!!!!!!! You're not going to kill a BABY. What type of monster are you?
Young Mother: Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I'll have the child. But can I have some money to help me raise the child?
Republican Asshole: Oh you're going to have to talk to the Democrats about that one. I want the baby born, but it could die a week later for all I care.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
But as far as keeping people on welfare to get their vote...different topic.
Interesting.
Nice touch with the “asshole” part. Effective. Wonder what could be added to the young mother or young father?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
If there is a heartbeat - No!
Over 60 million abortions in the Unite States since 1973, who knows what that number is worldwide, Holy moly that's a lot of lives that never had a chance.
Promote disipline, & responsibility.
Have control over thy pecker.
If a mother cannot support the baby herself encourage adoption whenever possible.
If a human embryo is not considered a life in the womb, what is it then a pimple?
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
As for the life in the womb - you're right, it is life, and I assume your purpose in parroting the "but it's alive!" message is to brutalize the act of abortion. I'll play. I believe in a woman's right to abort, kill, terminate, murder (pick a name, I don't care) a fetus if she so desires because it is her fucking fetus and not yours or mine.
Finally, I'm embarrassed to see you even suggest that 'peckers' have shown any ability to be controlled, or have acted with any discipline or sense of responsibility. Do your eyes and ears not function?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
I tapped the quote button on drakeheuer14 in agreeance.
But to (benjs) masturbation farms hugh?? nice facetiousness.
It's not a developing embryo until it is fertilized. Unbelievable responce (benjs)
I know benjs, expecting guys and gals to have more self-contro if they don't want babies right now is too much to ask.
_________________________
“Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:
‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Yes this changes everything.
So there's no reason to fertilize them all, that's ridiculous.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I know you were being facetious.
Masturbation firms made me chuckle.
It's all good.