A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[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.

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

You came back but still aren't willing to hold the one making the choice to spread her legs responsible. I don't care what protection she used or didn't use. Unless you were there to verify she did, you don't know. It doesn't change the fact that while she can do whatever she wants, it's still not the place of anyone else to offset the costs when she can't whether she tried to prevent it or not. There isn't but one form of birth control that's 100% foolproof 100% of the time. Once she makes the choice to cross that line, whether she chose to try and prevent it or not doesn't matter. If an adult is going to make an adult choice, the adult should pay for the results regardless.

 

[Boss]

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.

No, dumbass, that's how YOU make pregnancy sound because you want to find a reason to excuse abortions. Modern contraception works almost flawlessly. Very few pregnancies occur due to failure of contraceptives.

I understand grown ups like to have sex... they should do so responsibly... you know, like grown ups?

Look... I realize, there are some religious nuts out there who oppose any and all abortion from point of conception on... I am not one of those people. I feel that is TOO extreme and an unreasonable view for society as a whole. I totally get where they are coming from in an ethical sense... all life is precious. However, I feel like we should be able to work together toward some kind of compromise... where we all get something but none of us get everything.

I would accept the following: First trimester abortions following mandatory counseling and birth control education. First trimester abortions for rape and incest cases. Second and third trimester abortions ONLY when the mother's life is at risk. No more "partial-birth" or abortions on demand. AFTER the first trimester, the fetus has constitutional right to life protected. Aborted fetuses are never to be used for experimentation or to salvage body parts... that's just too barbaric.

Why can't reasonable and rational people come to agreement on something like this instead of continuing to suck a million lives down a tube each year for the sake of vanity and convenience? Why must this continue to remain some niggling political issue that divides us?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I dont oppose criminal convictions for illegal abortions so. . .

 

[Conservative65]

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

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

I find it interesting that those like Czernobog give lip service to "the father should be responsible" yet constantly talk about federal assistance to women who can't afford the kids they choose to have. They say the believe the sperm donor should be the one to pay but promote taxpayer funded programs paid for by those that aren't the father.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

I find it interesting that those like Czernobog give lip service to "the father should be responsible" yet constantly talk about federal assistance to women who can't afford the kids they choose to have. They say the believe the sperm donor should be the one to pay but promote taxpayer funded programs paid for by those that aren't the father.

There you go, putting words on my mouth.

Meanwhile, I agreed to support your desire to not have to pay for the support of children that women chose to have, when abortion was considered as an option.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think that would be implemented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

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

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

I find it interesting that those like Czernobog give lip service to "the father should be responsible" yet constantly talk about federal assistance to women who can't afford the kids they choose to have. They say the believe the sperm donor should be the one to pay but promote taxpayer funded programs paid for by those that aren't the father.

There you go, putting words on my mouth.

Meanwhile, I agreed to support your desire to not have to pay for the support of children that women chose to have, when abortion was considered as an option.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think that would be implemented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't think the sperm donor that helped create the child should pay?

Even if abortion isn't an option, no one but the sperm donor baby daddy should pay. He and the leg spreader are the ONLY two that made the choice to do what it took to support the child.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

I find it interesting that those like Czernobog give lip service to "the father should be responsible" yet constantly talk about federal assistance to women who can't afford the kids they choose to have. They say the believe the sperm donor should be the one to pay but promote taxpayer funded programs paid for by those that aren't the father.

There you go, putting words on my mouth.

Meanwhile, I agreed to support your desire to not have to pay for the support of children that women chose to have, when abortion was considered as an option.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think that would be implemented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't think the sperm donor that helped create the child should pay?

Even if abortion isn't an option, no one but the sperm donor baby daddy should pay. He and the leg spreader are the ONLY two that made the choice to do what it took to support the child.

Still dodging my question, I see. Yes. The "sperm donors" should take responsibility. See? We agree again.

Meanwhile, I have agreed that your welfare dollars should not be spent on floozies who could have had abortions and chose not to. Another thing you got me to agree to.

You have yet to explain how you think that should be implemented in actual practice. How do we go about separating the floozies who chose not to have abortions, from the deserving needy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll take that deal in a baby's heartbeat. And I would also work on ways to make the parents more responsible for the money as well. Especially any dead beat fathers who have no excuses for not working to provide for the children they help create.

I find it interesting that those like Czernobog give lip service to "the father should be responsible" yet constantly talk about federal assistance to women who can't afford the kids they choose to have. They say the believe the sperm donor should be the one to pay but promote taxpayer funded programs paid for by those that aren't the father.

There you go, putting words on my mouth.

Meanwhile, I agreed to support your desire to not have to pay for the support of children that women chose to have, when abortion was considered as an option.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you think that would be implemented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't think the sperm donor that helped create the child should pay?

Even if abortion isn't an option, no one but the sperm donor baby daddy should pay. He and the leg spreader are the ONLY two that made the choice to do what it took to support the child.

Still dodging my question, I see. Yes. The "sperm donors" should take responsibility. See? We agree again.

Meanwhile, I have agreed that your welfare dollars should not be spent on floozies who could have had abortions and chose not to. Another thing you got me to agree to.

You have yet to explain how you think that should be implemented in actual practice. How do we go about separating the floozies who chose not to have abortions, from the deserving needy?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Floozie has nothing to do with it and it really doesn't matter whether or not the sperm donor is taking responsibility. That's her job to get him to do it.

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

 

[Czernobog]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

If you make the choice to play with a loaded gun. . . or even one that you THOUGHT was unloaded.... and the gun goes off and kills or injures someone else. You can (and I think should) be held accountable for the lives that you have affected with your "choice."

Correct?

So, how is the decision to risk a pregnancy (even with contraception) much different from taking on the responsibility for handling a firearm?

Everyone knows (or should know) that no birth control is 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy. . . just as everyone knows (or should know) about the legal responsibilities for playing with a loaded gun.

 

[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

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

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

 

[Conservative65]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

You don't have the ability to dismiss me, pussy. What you're doing is called making an excuse because you got your ass handed to you.

 

[Czernobog]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

You don't have the ability to dismiss me, pussy. What you're doing is called making an excuse because you got your ass handed to you.

How is having a liar being exposed for his lies "having my ass handed to me"? You get caught trying to pass off bullshit as a reasonable argument, then claim victory! You're adorable.

And, of course I had the authority to dismiss you. I just did. I no longer need to respond to you on any other way than to remind everyone that you are a lying liar who uses lies to justify your unjustifiable position.

By all means, continue to blather on. You are dismissed.

Next...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

You don't have the ability to dismiss me, pussy. What you're doing is called making an excuse because you got your ass handed to you.

How is having a liar being exposed for his lies "having my ass handed to me". You get caught trying to pass off bullshit as a reasonable argument, then claim victory!

You're adorable. And, of course I had the authority to dismiss you. I just did. I no longer need to respond to you on any other way than to remind everyone that you are a lying liar who uses lies to justify your unjustifiable position.

By all means, continue to blather on. You are dismissed.

Next...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You just ran like the pussy you are, coward. You use that an excuse to run.

I can justify my position. I don't owe shit to anyone. If I don't give it to them under my own volition, they can do without. Don't like it. It gives you two options. Provide for the person yourself or tough shit.

Run, coward. It shows the type piece of shit you were raised to be.

 

[Czernobog]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

You don't have the ability to dismiss me, pussy. What you're doing is called making an excuse because you got your ass handed to you.

How is having a liar being exposed for his lies "having my ass handed to me". You get caught trying to pass off bullshit as a reasonable argument, then claim victory!

You're adorable. And, of course I had the authority to dismiss you. I just did. I no longer need to respond to you on any other way than to remind everyone that you are a lying liar who uses lies to justify your unjustifiable position.

By all means, continue to blather on. You are dismissed.

Next...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You just ran like the pussy you are, coward. You use that an excuse to run.

I can justify my position. I don't owe shit to anyone. If I don't give it to them under my own volition, they can do without. Don't like it. It gives you two options. Provide for the person yourself or tough shit.

Run, coward. It shows the type piece of shit you were raised to be.

Which is an excellent argument against welfare. Unfortunately welfare is not the topic, liar. Feel free to come back when you have an actual argument that is on topic.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

It's easy. Since no one deserves another person's money unless the one giving it does so willingly and without government mandate, problem solved.

But, it's about abortion vs. choice, and not your hatred of public assistance in general, right?

As I said all along, your red herring about not wanting to pay for another woman 's choice is just that - a red herring. you don't want welfare to exist period, and your desire has nothing to do with the question of abortion.

Fucking lying hypocrite. You are dismissed.

Next...

You don't have the ability to dismiss me, pussy. What you're doing is called making an excuse because you got your ass handed to you.

How is having a liar being exposed for his lies "having my ass handed to me". You get caught trying to pass off bullshit as a reasonable argument, then claim victory!

You're adorable. And, of course I had the authority to dismiss you. I just did. I no longer need to respond to you on any other way than to remind everyone that you are a lying liar who uses lies to justify your unjustifiable position.

By all means, continue to blather on. You are dismissed.

Next...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You just ran like the pussy you are, coward. You use that an excuse to run.

I can justify my position. I don't owe shit to anyone. If I don't give it to them under my own volition, they can do without. Don't like it. It gives you two options. Provide for the person yourself or tough shit.

Run, coward. It shows the type piece of shit you were raised to be.

Which is an excellent argument against welfare. Unfortunately welfare is not the topic, liar. Feel free to come back when you have an actual argument that is on topic.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll come back and talk about whatever I want. Since there isn't a damn thing you can do about it but whine like a little bitch, so much for your claim about dismissing me.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I know that I have already answered this post one but I have another response as well.

1. You didn't answer my question about "butting out." Are you consistent with the view that we should all "butt out" in any other cases where children are molested and killed? or only with abortion? And why do you draw distinctions between them?

I did answer your question. I have never suggested that we "butt out" of cases of child molestation, or murder. A fetus is not a child. Yeah, yeah. You're going use an appeal to definition fallacy to insist that fetus is synonymous with child. That doesn't make the argument any less irrational. So, since a fetus is not a child, your question is fallacious, and irrelevant.

2. You seem to think that the children's right to not be murdered by abortions is something that others can barter with. In your comment, you seem to be suggesting that the child's right to not be aborted is contingent upon whether or not I or others will help provide for them once they are "born" through welfare and other government programs.

I can't find anything in the Constitution where it suggests that any "person's" rights are contingent in that way. So, can you quote the portion of the Constitution that you think supports your views on that?

The problem is your irrational appeal to emotion, by continually trying to get everyone to agree with your characterization of a fetus as a child. Since you have not succeeded in doing that, your entire argument is specious. Come on back, when you have something more than an attempt at making us "feel guilty".

1. If a human being in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a child and not a person. . . then how do you explain the murder charges for killing one under in one of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws?

That's easy. Bad Law. One should never use bad law to try to justify an erroneous position. Those laws should never have been passed. They, in fact, were only given approval by the pro-choice activists when they were assured, repeatedly, that the laws were not designed to, nor would ever be used for, the very purpose for which you are now attempting to use them. They were assured that these laws were never meant to ensure the "rights of fetuses", but were allegedly meant only to get justice for women for whom the right to have a child was taken from them, against their will, by violent criminals. Of course, there were always those of us, like myself, who recognised the laws for what they were - attempts to backdoor personhood for fetuses, to use as justification for anti-abortion laws later. Like you are attempting to use those bad laws to do, now. Personally, I hope someone attempts what you are in the court system. Maybe then we can see those ill-conceived laws struck down.

2. Why is a pregnant woman said to be "with child?"

Really? Euphemisms? You are resorting to euphemisms to defend your position?

3. What is it that makes a biological "father" of any child - including a child in the womb? When did YOUR biological father become YOUR biological father?

Of course you can be a father to a fetus. That is merely an acknowledgement that your DNA contributed to the genetic makeup of the fetus. That still doesn't make the fetus synonymous with child.

Also, just so you know. . . You are using your accusation of "appeals to definitions" ass backwards.

As the link explains: "Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term."

YOU are trying to use the dictionary (definitions for child and children for example) to EXCLUDE children in the womb. And according to your cited fallacy. . . You are doing the very thing that you are accusing others of doing.

The word "child" is much more INCLUSIVE that you are comfortable with it being. And when I or anyone else try to point that out for you. . . . you fucking cry foul like a little fucking puss.

The word "child" is only inclusive of a fetus for emotional impact, not nat as a synonym to child. You can keep trying to convince us otherwise, but you will always fail.

If you want to convince us of your position, you are simply going to have to find some other means than trying to pull out heartstrings by using the word child when you are, in fact, referring to a fetus.