A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

 

[Conservative65]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

 

[Czernobog]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

 

[koshergrl]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

Welfare and abortion don't "help the poor".

Jobs and strong familial relationships do. We'll support those things, and we do support those things through various charities, our churches, and individual endeavors.

You go ahead and support out of wedlock unions, illegitimacy, and baby killing. Just do it on your own dime.

 

[Dana7360]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

Please, we all know the feds fund abortions.
There's no point in discussing this issue with liars.

 

[Conservative65]

And there is absolutely nobody in this country who is "unable to feed" their kids. All they have to do is trip right down to the welfare office. These are just excuses that baby killers like to toss about.

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

 

[Dana7360]

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

Please, we all know the feds fund abortions.
There's no point in discussing this issue with liars.

Oh so now you're saying you want to get rid of the hyde amendment and force women to die?

Or force rape and incest survivors to have the child of the barbarian who attacked her?

Please give me a reason you want to kill women, how killing women is pro life and why you believe that a woman should die just because her pregnancy went wrong?

Yes there are exceptions. Logical, reasonable and constitutional reasons.

So there's no point in discussing this with a person who claims to be pro life but insists on killing a woman because her pregnancy went wrong.

 

[Czernobog]

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

Welfare and abortion don't "help the poor".

Jobs and strong familial relationships do. We'll support those things, and we do support those things through various charities, our churches, and individual endeavors.

You go ahead and support out of wedlock unions, illegitimacy, and baby killing. Just do it on your own dime.

Whatever. Nowq your just sp;outing rhetoric. The data speaks for itself. You just want to use the government to dictate hows women behave.

 

[koshergrl]

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

The concept of personally helping people is foreign to leftist entitlement losers. They can't fathom caring for somebody for 50 years. Their mind set is that non-productive people (which is usually a good description of them) should be funded by the state..and that the less able ones should actually be killed by the state in order to provide the more able ones more state resources.

That's where this comes from. Losers who only get a few hundred dollars from the state a month look at babies and think "My life is miserable, why should that baby be subjected to miserable life..let's kill that baby, and I'll get more $$, and that will make me happier, and the baby won't be miserable!"

It truly is classic mental illness. Rats and rabbits go through something of the same process when they get past a certain point in their population density.

 

[Conservative65]

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

I'm all for women making a choice. She made one when she spread her legs that resulted in the pregnancy. At that point, it's about responsibility. I don't care how many kids a woman has as long as she supports them without demanding others do it for her.

There are insurance policies sold through the Obamacare exchanges that fund abortions based on a GAO report. Many of those policies involve taxpayer funded subsidies to the one receiving the care. That means taxpayers ARE paying for abortions.

According to the Hyde Amendment, federal tax money is used for abortions under certain conditions. They are health of the mother, incest, and rape but it's still federal tax money paying for it. If you're going to make a statement, include everything not just the parts that back up your claim. In the end, regardless of the exceptions, it's still the choice of the mother. Also, if the mother chooses to have the kid then goes on welfare, the choice that produced the situation is still hers and not the responsibility of anyone else to pay for.

 

[koshergrl]

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

Please, we all know the feds fund abortions.
There's no point in discussing this issue with liars.

Oh so now you're saying you want to get rid of the hyde amendment and force women to die?

Or force rape and incest survivors to have the child of the barbarian who attacked her?

Please give me a reason you want to kill women, how killing women is pro life and why you believe that a woman should die just because her pregnancy went wrong?

Yes there are exceptions. Logical, reasonable and constitutional reasons.

So there's no point in discussing this with a person who claims to be pro life but insists on killing a woman because her pregnancy went wrong.

Another false premise.

You loons pretend that if there wasn't "abortion on demand" that women won't be able to get medically necessary abortions.

It's a lie, it always has been.

Try again.

 

[Conservative65]

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

Welfare and abortion don't "help the poor".

Jobs and strong familial relationships do. We'll support those things, and we do support those things through various charities, our churches, and individual endeavors.

You go ahead and support out of wedlock unions, illegitimacy, and baby killing. Just do it on your own dime.

Whatever. Nowq your just sp;outing rhetoric. The data speaks for itself. You just want to use the government to dictate hows women behave.

Seems you want the government to dictate that the rest of us be forced to pay when the woman behaves in a manner she can't afford.

 

[Czernobog]

I would agree, wholeheartedly with your assessment, except for one minor detail. Look at the very post that you were responding to. Not only do your conservative compatriots want to ban abortions, they also want to cut welfare. So, if you and your conservative compatriots get your way, not only can women not get an abortion, but they won't be able to "trip down to the welfare office," because there will be no funds at the welfare office.

You guys want it both ways. You want to force women to have children they cannot afford, and you want to eliminate the services that would assist them in affording those children, once they have them. I'll tell you what. I'll get on board with one or the other. You can't have both. So? Which do you want? Do you want to ban abortions, or do you want to cut welfare? The ball is in your court. You choose which agenda you want me to agree with.

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

 

[Czernobog]

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

Welfare and abortion don't "help the poor".

Jobs and strong familial relationships do. We'll support those things, and we do support those things through various charities, our churches, and individual endeavors.

You go ahead and support out of wedlock unions, illegitimacy, and baby killing. Just do it on your own dime.

Whatever. Nowq your just sp;outing rhetoric. The data speaks for itself. You just want to use the government to dictate hows women behave.

Seems you want the government to dictate that the rest of us be forced to pay when the woman behaves in a manner she can't afford.

We've already proven that's a lie. You don't want to have your taxes used to assist the poor period. As soon as you revealed that, you lost any integrity with your "paying for her choices" bullshit. You might wanna try a different approach.

 

[Conservative65]

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

They don't make sense.

If it's about not wanting to pay for anything then they should be all for abortion.

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions. The federal law, the hyde amendment, prohibits federal tax dollars to be used on abortions.

So abortions are free to the taxpayers. The person having the abortion has to use their own money to pay for it.

So when they claim it's about not wanting to pay for something they're lying.

If they were honest about it they would be choosing what doesn't cost them even a single penny.

Which is an abortion.

Please, we all know the feds fund abortions.
There's no point in discussing this issue with liars.

Oh so now you're saying you want to get rid of the hyde amendment and force women to die?

Or force rape and incest survivors to have the child of the barbarian who attacked her?

Please give me a reason you want to kill women, how killing women is pro life and why you believe that a woman should die just because her pregnancy went wrong?

Yes there are exceptions. Logical, reasonable and constitutional reasons.

So there's no point in discussing this with a person who claims to be pro life but insists on killing a woman because her pregnancy went wrong.

I'm saying that if a woman chooses to have an abortion and can't afford it, you feel free to pay for it with your money. If a woman chooses to have an abortion because of health reasons and she dies because she can't get it, that's on you not me. You think she should be able to choose to do that.

Give me a reason why anyone should be able to make a choice for an abortion then demand someone else pay for it when she can't.

There's no sense in trying to educate a moron like you that believes the woman should have the choice then expects others to be willing to fund it when you won't.

 

[Conservative65]

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Hate to break it to you but because people don't do with what is theirs the way you think, it doesn't, by default, mean it's OK to take it from them.

It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of it's not your place to dictate how someone else should help another person. If those organizations weren't doing enough to suit you, it was an opportunity for you to do more. You didn't.

 

[Conservative65]

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

Welfare and abortion don't "help the poor".

Jobs and strong familial relationships do. We'll support those things, and we do support those things through various charities, our churches, and individual endeavors.

You go ahead and support out of wedlock unions, illegitimacy, and baby killing. Just do it on your own dime.

Whatever. Nowq your just sp;outing rhetoric. The data speaks for itself. You just want to use the government to dictate hows women behave.

Seems you want the government to dictate that the rest of us be forced to pay when the woman behaves in a manner she can't afford.

We've already proven that's a lie. You don't want to have your taxes used to assist the poor period. As soon as you revealed that, you lost any integrity with your "paying for her choices" bullshit. You might wanna try a different approach.

Sorry, asshole, but you saying you've proven something then using yourself as a source isn't proof. You might want to try helping the poor voluntarily to the same level you demand others be forced to do so before demanding they be forced. You might want to prove your compassion instead of simply claiming it.

 

[koshergrl]

As it stand currently, women can still get an abortion but if they choose not to get one and can't afford the kid they chose to have, they can get welfare, food stamps, and all sorts of other handouts. Seems you Liberals want it both ways. As of TODAY, you want the woman to have the choice AND if she can't afford the choice, want her to be able to get social welfare handouts. That's having it both ways. The choice without the responsibility.

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

 

[Conservative65]

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.