A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Faun]

Actually, you are the one bitching about your taxes being used to pay for "bastards" you didn't make. Now, we've found something I disagree with. So, I won't bitch about Christian schools getting my tax dollars, and you don't bitch about your tax dollars used for welfare. Deal?

Yes, I am opposed to the government funding abortions. I am also opposed to the government paying for plastic surgery or sex change operations. I am opposed to the government supporting your drug habit or buying your booze. There are all sorts of things I don't think the government should be using our tax dollars to pay for. A long time ago, I agreed that government should use our tax dollars to subsidize education because I feel education is important... but you know what? If there is going to be this kind of resistance to who spends their vouchers where... I would rather just return the tax dollars to the states and let my state decide how it is spent.

With the exception of rape & incest, the government doesn't fund abortions. When do you stop making shit up?

 

[Faun]

That money stopped being yours when you handed it over to me.

Then I should KEEP my money and tell you to go fuck a duck.

Go right ahead. Who's stopping you?

 

[Faun]

You do that. Tell the government to "Go fuck a duck, I ain't paying no stinkin taxes!"

Lemme know how that works out for ya.

But that's the government and the government is the people... not YOU. See... when I give the government my money, it's still my money because I am the government.

Not everyone who has a child in school pays taxes, so myself and others have decided to contribute so that those children can be educated too. Cash can be used for anything, so in order to ensure the money is used to educate the children, it is given in the form of a voucher. So it shouldn't matter what KIND of school as long as it meets the educational standards we've all agreed upon. That should be left to the individual.

And before you say it, I don't have any problem with a Muslim using their voucher to send their kid to a Muslim school, as long as the Muslim school is accredited and meets academic standards. It's their business, not mine.

You are not the government. You are an imbecile.

 

[Conservative65]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

Interesting how you don't know the state where I live yet seem to know a lot about it. I live here, bitch, you don't.

 

[Conservative65]

Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.

Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.

Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.

Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

 

[Czernobog]

Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.

Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.

Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.

Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.

Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abortion?

Also. . .

Why?

 

[Czernobog]

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abotion?

Also. . .

Why?

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Slade3200]

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abortion?

Also. . .

Why?

I understand that the anti-abortion crowd considers abortion murder and a violation of a child's right to live. What I don't understand is why you all don't express the want to convict the mother, doctors, and any accomplices for murder. It weakens the conviction of your argument.

Do you understand that the Pro-life crowd does not consider the fetus an independent life form? They view it as a part of the women's body and fight for the women's right to chose what to do with her body? We aren't going to start slapping charges for half murder on men who masterbate now are we?

Give the two points above I do acknowledge that this is an extremely complicated and emotional issue and I think it completely justified to discuss term limits as and a timeline for when an abortion should be allowed and not allowed depending on fetal development.

 

[Conservative65]

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abortion?

Also. . .

Why?

I understand that the anti-abortion crowd considers abortion murder and a violation of a child's right to live. What I don't understand is why you all don't express the want to convict the mother, doctors, and any accomplices for murder. It weakens the conviction of your argument.

Do you understand that the Pro-life crowd does not consider the fetus an independent life form? They view it as a part of the women's body and fight for the women's right to chose what to do with her body? We aren't going to start slapping charges for half murder on men who masterbate now are we?

Give the two points above I do acknowledge that this is an extremely complicated and emotional issue and I think it completely justified to discuss term limits as and a timeline for when an abortion should be allowed and not allowed depending on fetal development.

Convict them!!!!!

Afraid of getting charged for playing with yourself?

 

[Conservative65]

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Do you think we should all "butt out" and mind our own business when it comes to any other forms of child molestations and murders. . . Or only when it's in the form of an abotion?

Also. . .

Why?

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

For a choice she made to spread her legs. It goes beyond the choice of whether or not to have an abortion or have a child. One can't get to that level unless one chooses to spread her legs. It's a matter when you start holding someone accountable for a choice that produces a result.

Do we continue to support people that quit high school years down the road? I say no. Why should taxpayers fund the support of someone whose actions, regardless of when they were taken, produce results they can't afford? Why is it the responsibility of me and others like me that finished our education to support those that CHOSE not to do so?

 

[Conservative65]

Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.

Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is her decision to make and if she makes a decision to have a child she can't afford, she should STFU about those of us she told to butt out paying for it when she can't. The problem is there are plenty like you that say it IS her choice but don't support telling her "no" to someone else's money when she can't afford her choice.

For the most part, someone having an abortion pays for it herself although many insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges have provisions to fund it. If you know how insurance works, those on the plans that don't support abortion pay the costs of having that coverage with the way insurance works and how premium costs are determined. With those that choose to have children they can't afford, taxes taken from one fund the support of someone else's kids.

Life is about making choices. If you choose to do something that you can't afford, you're the last person that needs to demand someone else do it for you especially when you told those paying to butt out of your choice.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work/support themselves or who are in a place not of their own doing. However, if you won't work or your place is based on your bad choice, fuck off. I didn't make the choices which means the results are not my place to help offset.

 

[Boss]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Stop idiotically saying "forced to have one" like they didn't have a fucking choice but to get knocked up! You act like women are just some kind of mindless creature out there fucking and getting pregnant without being able to help that. If they don't want to have a baby, don't let men stick their dick in without a condom! Women aren't fucking sheep or dogs... they do have minds and can think for themselves.

Personally, I would like to find a solution we can all live with. I don't want to ban ALL abortions. I actually think there are times where it's probably the better option given the circumstances. That's rare, but it should be kept available just in case. I also think cultural values differ across the vast country and this is why "state's rights" are important... yeah, I know... soon as someone utters the phrase "state's rights" it is associated with rebel flags and slavery.... but all these cultural social issues are the very reason our founders set up the system they did. They knew that someone in Alabama might have completely different values than someone in Oregon. Abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms... all that should be left to the states and people respectively, as the Constitution outlines.

 

[Czernobog]

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is her decision to make and if she makes a decision to have a child she can't afford, she should STFU about those of us she told to butt out paying for it when she can't. The problem is there are plenty like you that say it IS her choice but don't support telling her "no" to someone else's money when she can't afford her choice.

For the most part, someone having an abortion pays for it herself although many insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges have provisions to fund it. If you know how insurance works, those on the plans that don't support abortion pay the costs of having that coverage with the way insurance works and how premium costs are determined. With those that choose to have children they can't afford, taxes taken from one fund the support of someone else's kids.

Life is about making choices. If you choose to do something that you can't afford, you're the last person that needs to demand someone else do it for you especially when you told those paying to butt out of your choice.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work/support themselves or who are in a place not of their own doing. However, if you won't work or your place is based on your bad choice, fuck off. I didn't make the choices which means the results are not my place to help offset.

I've already said that I would agree to your position. My question is what is the process by which you would implement that in regards to public assistance, and how one is qualified to receive public assistance.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Stop idiotically saying "forced to have one" like they didn't have a fucking choice but to get knocked up! You act like women are just some kind of mindless creature out there fucking and getting pregnant without being able to help that. If they don't want to have a baby, don't let men stick their dick in without a condom! Women aren't fucking sheep or dogs... they do have minds and can think for themselves.

Personally, I would like to find a solution we can all live with. I don't want to ban ALL abortions. I actually think there are times where it's probably the better option given the circumstances. That's rare, but it should be kept available just in case. I also think cultural values differ across the vast country and this is why "state's rights" are important... yeah, I know... soon as someone utters the phrase "state's rights" it is associated with rebel flags and slavery.... but all these cultural social issues are the very reason our founders set up the system they did. They knew that someone in Alabama might have completely different values than someone in Oregon. Abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms... all that should be left to the states and people respectively, as the Constitution outlines.

You, on the other hand, make pregnancy sound like a punishment for being a slut! Grown ups have sex. Grown ups like having sex. The vast majority of them do so while using contraceptives.. Sometimes contraceptives don't work. Just because someone chose to have sex does not automatically mean they chose to be pregnant. To claim that it does is stupid, and irrational. Come back when you have a rational argument, instead of slut shaming, and self-righteous condemnation of adults participating in adult activities.

 

[Conservative65]

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is her decision to make and if she makes a decision to have a child she can't afford, she should STFU about those of us she told to butt out paying for it when she can't. The problem is there are plenty like you that say it IS her choice but don't support telling her "no" to someone else's money when she can't afford her choice.

For the most part, someone having an abortion pays for it herself although many insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges have provisions to fund it. If you know how insurance works, those on the plans that don't support abortion pay the costs of having that coverage with the way insurance works and how premium costs are determined. With those that choose to have children they can't afford, taxes taken from one fund the support of someone else's kids.

Life is about making choices. If you choose to do something that you can't afford, you're the last person that needs to demand someone else do it for you especially when you told those paying to butt out of your choice.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work/support themselves or who are in a place not of their own doing. However, if you won't work or your place is based on your bad choice, fuck off. I didn't make the choices which means the results are not my place to help offset.

I've already said that I would agree to your position. My question is what is the process by which you would implement that in regards to public assistance, and how one is qualified to receive public assistance.

An example may help. Growing up, my neighbor was SUPPOSEDLY disabled and couldn't work due to an injury that left him physically unable to do the job he was doing when he was hurt. However, he was more than physically able to build a garage in his back yard, paint his house, and do all sorts of things that were far more physically demanding than the job he was too hurt to work. Seems getting that check for being unable to not do less physically demanding work didn't keep him from doing all sorts of things that the disability indicated he wouldn't be able to do.

Take the high school dropout. Using 2014 numbers, the median income for someone >= 25 years old with less than a high school diploma was $488/week or $25,376 (52 weeks 8 $488/week). If that person chose to drop out and is at the median, why is it the responsibility of those that didn't to offset his/her choices when that choice produces results the person can't afford?

 

[Conservative65]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Stop idiotically saying "forced to have one" like they didn't have a fucking choice but to get knocked up! You act like women are just some kind of mindless creature out there fucking and getting pregnant without being able to help that. If they don't want to have a baby, don't let men stick their dick in without a condom! Women aren't fucking sheep or dogs... they do have minds and can think for themselves.

Personally, I would like to find a solution we can all live with. I don't want to ban ALL abortions. I actually think there are times where it's probably the better option given the circumstances. That's rare, but it should be kept available just in case. I also think cultural values differ across the vast country and this is why "state's rights" are important... yeah, I know... soon as someone utters the phrase "state's rights" it is associated with rebel flags and slavery.... but all these cultural social issues are the very reason our founders set up the system they did. They knew that someone in Alabama might have completely different values than someone in Oregon. Abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms... all that should be left to the states and people respectively, as the Constitution outlines.

You, on the other hand, make pregnancy sound like a punishment for being a slut! Grown ups have sex. Grown ups like having sex. The vast majority of them do so while using contraceptives.. Sometimes contraceptives don't work. Just because someone chose to have sex does not automatically mean they chose to be pregnant. To claim that it does is stupid, and irrational. Come back when you have a rational argument, instead of slut shaming, and self-righteous condemnation of adults participating in adult activities.

I consider pregnancy the responsibility of the one that chose to spread her legs and the one that got between them when she did.

I understand adults do such things. I also understand that it doesn't matter whether or not they chose to use contraceptives. Either way, the choice to do the act doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to pay for the results even if the contraceptives fail. The contraceptives are irrelevant when you're talking about the choice someone made to do what it takes to get pregnant.

Come back when you're willing to hold the ones doing the act responsible instead of the rest of us for a choice we didn't make. I don't condemn them. I simply expect them to be responsible adults and take financial responsibility for their choices despite the efforts they made to prevent it. You don't.

 

[Czernobog]

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is her decision to make and if she makes a decision to have a child she can't afford, she should STFU about those of us she told to butt out paying for it when she can't. The problem is there are plenty like you that say it IS her choice but don't support telling her "no" to someone else's money when she can't afford her choice.

For the most part, someone having an abortion pays for it herself although many insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges have provisions to fund it. If you know how insurance works, those on the plans that don't support abortion pay the costs of having that coverage with the way insurance works and how premium costs are determined. With those that choose to have children they can't afford, taxes taken from one fund the support of someone else's kids.

Life is about making choices. If you choose to do something that you can't afford, you're the last person that needs to demand someone else do it for you especially when you told those paying to butt out of your choice.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work/support themselves or who are in a place not of their own doing. However, if you won't work or your place is based on your bad choice, fuck off. I didn't make the choices which means the results are not my place to help offset.

I've already said that I would agree to your position. My question is what is the process by which you would implement that in regards to public assistance, and how one is qualified to receive public assistance.

An example may help. Growing up, my neighbor was SUPPOSEDLY disabled and couldn't work due to an injury that left him physically unable to do the job he was doing when he was hurt. However, he was more than physically able to build a garage in his back yard, paint his house, and do all sorts of things that were far more physically demanding than the job he was too hurt to work. Seems getting that check for being unable to not do less physically demanding work didn't keep him from doing all sorts of things that the disability indicated he wouldn't be able to do.

Take the high school dropout. Using 2014 numbers, the median income for someone >= 25 years old with less than a high school diploma was $488/week or $25,376 (52 weeks 8 $488/week). If that person chose to drop out and is at the median, why is it the responsibility of those that didn't to offset his/her choices when that choice produces results the person can't afford?

Okay. So, must have a high school diploma, or equivalent, to qualify for public assistance. I can get behind that. I have been appalled at the high school drop out rate for years. When I was in school dropping out was the aberration, and carried with it something of a stigma - even those with a G.E.D. were considered...less...than those who had the discipline to finish high school. I would be perfectly fine with policies that would, once again, make it considered less acceptable to drop out of high school.

However, that still doesn't get to the question surrounding this topic, which was, specifically, women expecting you to support children they chose not to abort. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you would implement that particular restriction into the welfare system.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. So, no abortions. Then, we can count on your support for federal assistance to women who can't afford a child being forced to have one, right?

Stop idiotically saying "forced to have one" like they didn't have a fucking choice but to get knocked up! You act like women are just some kind of mindless creature out there fucking and getting pregnant without being able to help that. If they don't want to have a baby, don't let men stick their dick in without a condom! Women aren't fucking sheep or dogs... they do have minds and can think for themselves.

Personally, I would like to find a solution we can all live with. I don't want to ban ALL abortions. I actually think there are times where it's probably the better option given the circumstances. That's rare, but it should be kept available just in case. I also think cultural values differ across the vast country and this is why "state's rights" are important... yeah, I know... soon as someone utters the phrase "state's rights" it is associated with rebel flags and slavery.... but all these cultural social issues are the very reason our founders set up the system they did. They knew that someone in Alabama might have completely different values than someone in Oregon. Abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms... all that should be left to the states and people respectively, as the Constitution outlines.

You, on the other hand, make pregnancy sound like a punishment for being a slut! Grown ups have sex. Grown ups like having sex. The vast majority of them do so while using contraceptives.. Sometimes contraceptives don't work. Just because someone chose to have sex does not automatically mean they chose to be pregnant. To claim that it does is stupid, and irrational. Come back when you have a rational argument, instead of slut shaming, and self-righteous condemnation of adults participating in adult activities.

I consider pregnancy the responsibility of the one that chose to spread her legs and the one that got between them when she did.

I understand adults do such things. I also understand that it doesn't matter whether or not they chose to use contraceptives. Either way, the choice to do the act doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to pay for the results even if the contraceptives fail. The contraceptives are irrelevant when you're talking about the choice someone made to do what it takes to get pregnant.

Come back when you're willing to hold the ones doing the act responsible instead of the rest of us for a choice we didn't make. I don't condemn them. I simply expect them to be responsible adults and take financial responsibility for their choices despite the efforts they made to prevent it. You don't.

Aaand, more slut shaming. I refer you to my response to Boss, and his ignorant, jackass comment in this vein.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you support MY choice of not having to support women and their children SHE chose to have after telling me to butt out of what she did with her body?

It's a simple yes/no answer and we both know your answer since you've expressed it more than once.

Sure. So long as you support the fact that it is her decision to make, and you should "butt out". I'm glad we could come to an agreement.

Now, I'll be curious to see how you incorporate that particular restriction into the welfare system.

How do you go about singling out women who chose not to have abortions?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is her decision to make and if she makes a decision to have a child she can't afford, she should STFU about those of us she told to butt out paying for it when she can't. The problem is there are plenty like you that say it IS her choice but don't support telling her "no" to someone else's money when she can't afford her choice.

For the most part, someone having an abortion pays for it herself although many insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges have provisions to fund it. If you know how insurance works, those on the plans that don't support abortion pay the costs of having that coverage with the way insurance works and how premium costs are determined. With those that choose to have children they can't afford, taxes taken from one fund the support of someone else's kids.

Life is about making choices. If you choose to do something that you can't afford, you're the last person that needs to demand someone else do it for you especially when you told those paying to butt out of your choice.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work/support themselves or who are in a place not of their own doing. However, if you won't work or your place is based on your bad choice, fuck off. I didn't make the choices which means the results are not my place to help offset.

I've already said that I would agree to your position. My question is what is the process by which you would implement that in regards to public assistance, and how one is qualified to receive public assistance.

An example may help. Growing up, my neighbor was SUPPOSEDLY disabled and couldn't work due to an injury that left him physically unable to do the job he was doing when he was hurt. However, he was more than physically able to build a garage in his back yard, paint his house, and do all sorts of things that were far more physically demanding than the job he was too hurt to work. Seems getting that check for being unable to not do less physically demanding work didn't keep him from doing all sorts of things that the disability indicated he wouldn't be able to do.

Take the high school dropout. Using 2014 numbers, the median income for someone >= 25 years old with less than a high school diploma was $488/week or $25,376 (52 weeks 8 $488/week). If that person chose to drop out and is at the median, why is it the responsibility of those that didn't to offset his/her choices when that choice produces results the person can't afford?

Okay. So, must have a high school diploma, or equivalent, to qualify for public assistance. I can get behind that. I have been appalled at the high school drop out rate for years. When I was in school dropping out was the aberration, and carried with it something of a stigma - even those with a G.E.D. were considered...less...than those who had the discipline to finish high school. I would be perfectly fine with policies that would, once again, make it considered less acceptable to drop out of high school.

However, that still doesn't get to the question surrounding this topic, which was, specifically, women expecting you to support children they chose not to abort. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you would implement that particular restriction into the welfare system.

It's not that they drop out that bothers me. It's that many of them, due to what statistics say, can't support themselves and expect the rest of us to offset their choice. It's like the women having children they can't afford. I don't care how many she has as long as she supports them. I don't care if he/she quits high school as long as when that $7.25/hour job that comes with it isn't getting the job done financially, they don't demand someone else support them or that businesses be forced to pay them $15/hour because it doesn't.

If a woman has children, it's obvious she chose not to abort. There aren't but two choices now. Abort or have the child. If she has children, that means she chose not to abort. It's easy. Don't support them. Expect them to support themselves. What's worse, and what many ignore, is that there are women that have children they currently can't afford to support as evidenced by their use of social welfare, that have MORE children. If the taxpayers are expected and forced to support her choice to do so, do you really think she's going to quit having them if the taxpayers are forced to continue to support every one she has?