If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

[bodecea]

You stand by silently on a lot of issues with innocent children. Whats one more?

You are heartless, cruel, and morally in a very dark place. I advise you to seek spiritual guidance.

I have a god daughter I am raising. I cant be too cruel and yes I am in a dark place. I like the dark. Its my spiritual guidance.

How do you have a goddaughter when you obviously don't believe in God? Did the parents just pick you randomly off the street?

Its just a term. It doesnt mean my goddaughter is actually a god.
No. I have known the mother since we were young adults.

To be a godmother, you have to participate in the child's baptism, stand in her place and say the words for her denouncing Satan and all the rest.

And in the Catholic Church, at least, you must be a believing Catholic to be a godmother. And they make sure of it, you don't get to be a godmother if you are just a casual Catholic.

You, ma'am, are a complete sociopath who calls unborn children "parasites". I have to assume you are a non-believer.

No, you don't have to do those things to be a godmother or god father.

 

[Darkwind]

A statement of extreme ignorance.

Please, tell me where I am wrong.

He doesn't have to get fat.

He doesn't have to go to the doctor all the time.

He doesn't have to quit drinking, smoking, or doing wild, stupid shit like skiing off his neighbor's barn.

He can still fuck other women without any change in his own appearance.

He doesn't have to do ANYTHING to bring the child into the world but FUCK.

Now, after the child is here, that's different. Before, he should get zero say.

That is NOT what a man, let alone a father, would do. Why are you so focused on the physical image?

In addition to that kind of nonsense, a father often will do work and jobs that are detrimental to his health and abusive to his body. I'm not saying that to complain about the things men do in the world to support their family. It is just a fact of life. That is why men don't live as long.

Sorry, your position is just wrong.

 

[bodecea]

If it wasnt a false alarm would you have been prepared to carry the child in your stomach for 9 months?

Do me a favor.

Build a time machine and make it possible for me to carry the child.

Do it.

So you agree it wasnt possible? Therefore the burden was entirely on her right? Who are you to dictate to her what she should or shouldnt do with her own body?

I have the same right to tell the expectant mother of our child that she has no right to kill our child that I have to tell anyone else. maybe more so.

The same right that i have to oppose any OTHER forms of child molestation.

I said dictate not tell. No one cares what you tell someone. Dictate would be forcing the issue. and yes she has a right to have an abortion. Its the law.

Not all laws are Constitutional. Especially any laws which deny children their rights to due process and their right to the Equal protections of our laws. Read my sig.

Roe v. Wade isn't Constitutional?

 

[Conservative65]

It has no rights while it freeloads off the mothers body. And there IS a time frame for those squatters rights.

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

Since most people don't entirely control our economic circumstances, it is in the public good to help the most economically vulnerable during difficult times.

I didn't cause the 2008 economic collapse either, but I did lose my job as a result of that collapse. Why should I have to suffer since I did nothing wrong and everything right? My bosses begged the firm not to let me go but it was a purely economic decision.

My neighbour's husband took a powder leaving her with 2 young children, no job and no prospects. She applied for welfare, went back to school, and became a teacher. My tax dollars helped her do that. I have no issue with helping her. She's s nice person and she's doing right by her family and her community.

You want people to do what you perceive to be the "right" thin

If she chooses to have the child and he opts to not pay to support it, she knew the risk before when she spread her legs. Isn't that equal? Or do you support her having a choice and him not having one?

Nope. He knew the risks too. Once he lets those swimmers go, he's on the hook. Personal responsibility baby! This is what it really looks like.

Aborting a fetus you can't care for is personal responsibility. Accepting that you cannot, for whatever reason, carry a child to term or raise it is personal responsibility. But for a man to complain that a woman he knowingly had sex with is refusing to have his baby when he knew she didn't want a child, is petulant and foolish. You had a choice and you made it.

Aborting a baby you knew could be produced when you spread your legs isn't personal responsibility. Accepting the results of spreading your legs despite the results not being what you wanted is personal responsibility. Is it personally responsible to burn down your house if you can no longer pay for it?

Now for the rest of us. Since your argument is that the one letting go of the swimmers is the sole reason he is responsible for supporting the child, why are those of us that didn't let go of them with her responsible is she chooses to have a child she can't support? We didn't do the very thing for which you argue is the reason for the donor having to pay. Let me guess, you'll find some other excuse why a choice SHE made is not her responsibility to pay for.

She will be paying for that choice for the rest of her life. She will be raising that child, giving the baby her time, attention, and a goodly chunk of her worldly resources. If she needs some financial assistance to do this and the father isn't stepping up, you should be willing to help her through the rough patches since you think she did the right thing.

Americans think they're being patriotic by waving a flag. Canadians believe they're being patriotic by helping their fellow Canadians through rough patches. Love of country isn't something you wear on your lapel.

People are more important than things.

Progressives don't believe that.

They believe there are too many people, that animals and trees and dirt are every bit as valuable as human beings...and much, much more valuable than weak human beings..particularly inanimate objects and animals are more valuable than vulnerable women, babies, the elderly, and the disabled.

You haven't the vaguest clue what progressives believe. If not for progressives there would be no social assistance of any kind for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. Conservatives have fought against all of these things at every step of the way, saying leave it up to the church's or personal charity.

You personally rail against ever food stamps, Medicare, and every tax dollar spent on social programs. What a hypocrite!

Do you realize that if you progressives that claim to care so much for others would actually do personally what you don't mind forcing the rest of us to do what you say should happen wouldn't involve the government?

Things like this should be left up to personal charity. Why should you get to say something should be in place then demand someone else be forced to fund it because you wo't personally do what you say should be done.

 

[bodecea]

So you agree it wasnt possible? Therefore the burden was entirely on her right? Who are you to dictate to her what she should or shouldnt do with her own body?

I have the same right to tell the expectant mother of our child that she has no right to kill our child that I have to tell anyone else. maybe more so.

The same right that i have to oppose any OTHER forms of child molestation.

I said dictate not tell. No one cares what you tell someone. Dictate would be forcing the issue. and yes she has a right to have an abortion. Its the law.

Not all laws are Constitutional. Especially any laws which deny children their rights to due process and their right to the Equal protections of our laws.

Doesnt make them any less laws though. Until its illegal its legal. You can theorize about that until the cows come home but it wont change the facts.

The reason I start these threads is to raise awareness, diminish support for abortion, so that one day abortion will be outlawed.

And what would be the punishment for an abortion in your future world?

 

[koshergrl]

You are heartless, cruel, and morally in a very dark place. I advise you to seek spiritual guidance.

I have a god daughter I am raising. I cant be too cruel and yes I am in a dark place. I like the dark. Its my spiritual guidance.

How do you have a goddaughter when you obviously don't believe in God? Did the parents just pick you randomly off the street?

Its just a term. It doesnt mean my goddaughter is actually a god.
No. I have known the mother since we were young adults.

To be a godmother, you have to participate in the child's baptism, stand in her place and say the words for her denouncing Satan and all the rest.

And in the Catholic Church, at least, you must be a believing Catholic to be a godmother. And they make sure of it, you don't get to be a godmother if you are just a casual Catholic.

You, ma'am, are a complete sociopath who calls unborn children "parasites". I have to assume you are a non-believer.

No, you don't have to do those things to be a godmother or god father.

"In the Catholic Church".
Bode's dyslexia strikes again.

There may be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each (c. 873), but if there are two sponsors, they should not be of the same sex. If there are two sponsors, one must be Catholic. Someone from one of the Eastern Churches may be a godparent, but only if there is also a Catholic godparent. Members of the Eastern Churches are distinguished from members of ecclesial communities. The Code of Canon Law (c. 874§2) allows the participation of “a baptized member of a non-Catholic ecclesial community” but only “together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.” Thus, there is a distinction between a godparent and a Christian witness. It appears that the church law has a preference for a Catholic sponsor.

Q&A: What are the rules for godparents?

 

[koshergrl]

I have the same right to tell the expectant mother of our child that she has no right to kill our child that I have to tell anyone else. maybe more so.

The same right that i have to oppose any OTHER forms of child molestation.

I said dictate not tell. No one cares what you tell someone. Dictate would be forcing the issue. and yes she has a right to have an abortion. Its the law.

Not all laws are Constitutional. Especially any laws which deny children their rights to due process and their right to the Equal protections of our laws.

Doesnt make them any less laws though. Until its illegal its legal. You can theorize about that until the cows come home but it wont change the facts.

The reason I start these threads is to raise awareness, diminish support for abortion, so that one day abortion will be outlawed.

And what would be the punishment for an abortion in your future world?

Execute the aborionist and all those who fund him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It has no rights while it freeloads off the mothers body. And there IS a time frame for those squatters rights.

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

There's a lot of "shoulds" in there. Simply lamenting the loss of an ideal outcome does nothing to address the actual problem. Whether the solution is abortion or birth, the father is on the hook either way.

 

[koshergrl]

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

Since most people don't entirely control our economic circumstances, it is in the public good to help the most economically vulnerable during difficult times.

I didn't cause the 2008 economic collapse either, but I did lose my job as a result of that collapse. Why should I have to suffer since I did nothing wrong and everything right? My bosses begged the firm not to let me go but it was a purely economic decision.

My neighbour's husband took a powder leaving her with 2 young children, no job and no prospects. She applied for welfare, went back to school, and became a teacher. My tax dollars helped her do that. I have no issue with helping her. She's s nice person and she's doing right by her family and her community.

You want people to do what you perceive to be the "right" thin

Nope. He knew the risks too. Once he lets those swimmers go, he's on the hook. Personal responsibility baby! This is what it really looks like.

Aborting a fetus you can't care for is personal responsibility. Accepting that you cannot, for whatever reason, carry a child to term or raise it is personal responsibility. But for a man to complain that a woman he knowingly had sex with is refusing to have his baby when he knew she didn't want a child, is petulant and foolish. You had a choice and you made it.

Aborting a baby you knew could be produced when you spread your legs isn't personal responsibility. Accepting the results of spreading your legs despite the results not being what you wanted is personal responsibility. Is it personally responsible to burn down your house if you can no longer pay for it?

Now for the rest of us. Since your argument is that the one letting go of the swimmers is the sole reason he is responsible for supporting the child, why are those of us that didn't let go of them with her responsible is she chooses to have a child she can't support? We didn't do the very thing for which you argue is the reason for the donor having to pay. Let me guess, you'll find some other excuse why a choice SHE made is not her responsibility to pay for.

She will be paying for that choice for the rest of her life. She will be raising that child, giving the baby her time, attention, and a goodly chunk of her worldly resources. If she needs some financial assistance to do this and the father isn't stepping up, you should be willing to help her through the rough patches since you think she did the right thing.

Americans think they're being patriotic by waving a flag. Canadians believe they're being patriotic by helping their fellow Canadians through rough patches. Love of country isn't something you wear on your lapel.

People are more important than things.

Progressives don't believe that.

They believe there are too many people, that animals and trees and dirt are every bit as valuable as human beings...and much, much more valuable than weak human beings..particularly inanimate objects and animals are more valuable than vulnerable women, babies, the elderly, and the disabled.

You haven't the vaguest clue what progressives believe. If not for progressives there would be no social assistance of any kind for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. Conservatives have fought against all of these things at every step of the way, saying leave it up to the church's or personal charity.

You personally rail against ever food stamps, Medicare, and every tax dollar spent on social programs. What a hypocrite!

Do you realize that if you progressives that claim to care so much for others would actually do personally what you don't mind forcing the rest of us to do what you say should happen wouldn't involve the government?

Things like this should be left up to personal charity. Why should you get to say something should be in place then demand someone else be forced to fund it because you wo't personally do what you say should be done.

"I don't want to pay for them ,so just kill them"

Time honored Nazi ideology, btw.

Remember, the actions the Nazis were reviled for were the actions that were based on their PROGRESSIVE, scientific, anti-Christian ideology.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

You probably should have taken measures to prevent knocking her up in the first place.

Where is her responsibility for not getting knocked up? She played half the role in the process by spreading her legs. In fact, he couldn't have done the knocking if she hadn't presented to door.

While I agree that it takes two, the premise was paternal rights. Simply don't put yourself in the position of facing that moral dilemma.

Yet you refuse to answer the question. I didn't think you had the guts.

Yet you refuse to answer the question. I didn't think you had the guts.

I did answer, dope. You just have a problem with reading. My response was within the context of paternal rights.

 

[bodecea]

Very simple reason. You dont have to carry the load for 9 months and have basically a parasite eating off you.

if you want your child you should have sex only with a woman that wants to carry your child.

Then why do so many black "men" produce so many black bastards for white people to have to financially support?

Whoop! There it is!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, the law is based on the understanding that abortion, legal or otherwise, is part of the human condition and will always happen. It was determined that making it legal and therefore regulated at least makes it safe. It was a compromise.
Moral or not, it will always happen.

Safe for whom? Every abortion takes the life of a living being.

Interesting how you justify immoral acts.

Safe for whom? Every abortion takes the life of a living being.

Interesting how you justify immoral acts.

Safe for the patient of course.

Interesting that you struggle with your native language.

But not for the one being killed.

Interesting that you don't care about that life.

Of course that is the outcome whether legal or illegal, moral or immoral. It has no bearing on the debate.

It absolutely has a bearing. Give them coat hangers.

The outcome is the same, dope. You've only suggested that the woman should suffer any consequence in silence and darkness.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ If you're going to argue that it's her body and her decision, why do you avoid holding accountable for funding that decision to the one that made it?

.

That funding is held accountable, by the voters. What's your plan to thwart the will of the People if they choose at the ballot box to give financial help to parents?

 

[rightwinger]

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

Since most people don't entirely control our economic circumstances, it is in the public good to help the most economically vulnerable during difficult times.

I didn't cause the 2008 economic collapse either, but I did lose my job as a result of that collapse. Why should I have to suffer since I did nothing wrong and everything right? My bosses begged the firm not to let me go but it was a purely economic decision.

My neighbour's husband took a powder leaving her with 2 young children, no job and no prospects. She applied for welfare, went back to school, and became a teacher. My tax dollars helped her do that. I have no issue with helping her. She's s nice person and she's doing right by her family and her community.

You want people to do what you perceive to be the "right" thin

Aborting a baby you knew could be produced when you spread your legs isn't personal responsibility. Accepting the results of spreading your legs despite the results not being what you wanted is personal responsibility. Is it personally responsible to burn down your house if you can no longer pay for it?

Now for the rest of us. Since your argument is that the one letting go of the swimmers is the sole reason he is responsible for supporting the child, why are those of us that didn't let go of them with her responsible is she chooses to have a child she can't support? We didn't do the very thing for which you argue is the reason for the donor having to pay. Let me guess, you'll find some other excuse why a choice SHE made is not her responsibility to pay for.

She will be paying for that choice for the rest of her life. She will be raising that child, giving the baby her time, attention, and a goodly chunk of her worldly resources. If she needs some financial assistance to do this and the father isn't stepping up, you should be willing to help her through the rough patches since you think she did the right thing.

Americans think they're being patriotic by waving a flag. Canadians believe they're being patriotic by helping their fellow Canadians through rough patches. Love of country isn't something you wear on your lapel.

People are more important than things.

Progressives don't believe that.

They believe there are too many people, that animals and trees and dirt are every bit as valuable as human beings...and much, much more valuable than weak human beings..particularly inanimate objects and animals are more valuable than vulnerable women, babies, the elderly, and the disabled.

You haven't the vaguest clue what progressives believe. If not for progressives there would be no social assistance of any kind for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. Conservatives have fought against all of these things at every step of the way, saying leave it up to the church's or personal charity.

You personally rail against ever food stamps, Medicare, and every tax dollar spent on social programs. What a hypocrite!

Do you realize that if you progressives that claim to care so much for others would actually do personally what you don't mind forcing the rest of us to do what you say should happen wouldn't involve the government?

Things like this should be left up to personal charity. Why should you get to say something should be in place then demand someone else be forced to fund it because you wo't personally do what you say should be done.

"I don't want to pay for them ,so just kill them"

Time honored Nazi ideology, btw.

Remember, the actions the Nazis were reviled for were the actions that were based on their PROGRESSIVE, scientific, anti-Christian ideology.

The Nazis were Christians....The Jews were not

 

[NYcarbineer]

So is the OP implying that if the father insists the woman have an abortion, but she has the child,

he shouldn't have to pay any support for it?

 

[bodecea]

So basically you had children with a woman that wanted children like I said in the first place?

Our first child was before we were married. She could have gotten an abortion, but she was pro-life like me and never considered it. We were very young, and had no way to support the family. My father had to help us, and I fortunately had inherited some money from my mother. Abortion would have been an easy way out, but we did not do that, and I have no regrets that we kept our daughter.

I didnt say anything about marriage. You can have children regardless of being married. I said you had children with a woman that wanted to have children. Thats a good decision you made. People who have sex with a woman that doesnt want children or you havent discussed it has no responsibility (moral or legal) to carry the child for you at all.

My guess is that you don't believe in God, so you are wandering in darkness and don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Why are we required to believe in your god in the way you do?

Why are we required to do things the way you think we should. Funny how those that demand people should push their beliefs on others do just that when it comes to all sorts of things.

I'm not pushing you and yours to get an abortion...however, you are pushing to prevent me and mine from being able to get an abortion.

So who exactly is pushing their their beliefs on whom?

 

[bodecea]

I have a god daughter I am raising. I cant be too cruel and yes I am in a dark place. I like the dark. Its my spiritual guidance.

How do you have a goddaughter when you obviously don't believe in God? Did the parents just pick you randomly off the street?

Its just a term. It doesnt mean my goddaughter is actually a god.
No. I have known the mother since we were young adults.

To be a godmother, you have to participate in the child's baptism, stand in her place and say the words for her denouncing Satan and all the rest.

And in the Catholic Church, at least, you must be a believing Catholic to be a godmother. And they make sure of it, you don't get to be a godmother if you are just a casual Catholic.

You, ma'am, are a complete sociopath who calls unborn children "parasites". I have to assume you are a non-believer.

No, you don't have to do those things to be a godmother or god father.

"In the Catholic Church".
Bode's dyslexia strikes again.

There may be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each (c. 873), but if there are two sponsors, they should not be of the same sex. If there are two sponsors, one must be Catholic. Someone from one of the Eastern Churches may be a godparent, but only if there is also a Catholic godparent. Members of the Eastern Churches are distinguished from members of ecclesial communities. The Code of Canon Law (c. 874§2) allows the participation of “a baptized member of a non-Catholic ecclesial community” but only “together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.” Thus, there is a distinction between a godparent and a Christian witness. It appears that the church law has a preference for a Catholic sponsor.

Q&A: What are the rules for godparents?

That's the rules if you are catholic.....but catholics aren't the only ones who have the idea of godmother and godfather......

Are you really and truly as dense as you put out to be, Allie?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So is the OP implying that if the father insists the woman have an abortion, but she has the child,

he shouldn't have to pay any support for it?

That would be the flip side of the argument. You won't get an answer. These types rarely think beyond the initial premise.

 

[Care4all]

...never discussed, or even considered?

There must be all kinds of stories of fathers who wanted to keep their child, but the mother aborted and they could do nothing to stop it.

I am convinced the pro-abort media is censoring these stories, which must be in the millions by now.

I do have a story of a friend of mine, who was blackmailed into a very bad marriage.

She said, "Marry me, or I will abort your child."

So he married her, even though I told him the marriage would never last, even though his father told him he'd get an all-expenses paid trip through Europe if he didn't marry her.

Of course, none of us knew about the abortion threat, because he kept that a secret.

And, sure enough, the marriage was very unhappy, and as I predicted, ended in divorce.

Why doesn't the media cover a story like that?

I find the story very interesting, don't you?

The internet can get the word out if there were any men that wanted to keep their babies....they are few and far between....most girls have abortions because their boyfriends do not want to be fathers to their children or husband's to their child's mother.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny, that's not what the Supreme Court said when they were deciding Roe.

They said:

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

You don't get it. I DON'T CARE what the SC says. Its MY body. MY choice. Not yours. Not the courts. Not anybodys. PERIOD. And the laws can dictate whatever floats their boat but women who choose to NOT carry a fetus WILL find a way to remove it. So knock yourselves out trying to win control over a body that is not yours. Good luck with that.

Thank you. That is exactly why it must be legal. It's part of human nature and Roe simply allows for it to be done safely.

Funny how those of you that say what a woman does with her body is her choice yet you want others to pay for things when the one making the choice can't afford to do so. If someone gets to make the sole choice, shouldn't the sole responsibility of paying for it be with the one making it?

Since most people don't entirely control our economic circumstances, it is in the public good to help the most economically vulnerable during difficult times.

I didn't cause the 2008 economic collapse either, but I did lose my job as a result of that collapse. Why should I have to suffer since I did nothing wrong and everything right? My bosses begged the firm not to let me go but it was a purely economic decision.

My neighbour's husband took a powder leaving her with 2 young children, no job and no prospects. She applied for welfare, went back to school, and became a teacher. My tax dollars helped her do that. I have no issue with helping her. She's s nice person and she's doing right by her family and her community.

You want people to do what you perceive to be the "right" thin

Nope. He knew the risks too. Once he lets those swimmers go, he's on the hook. Personal responsibility baby! This is what it really looks like.

Aborting a fetus you can't care for is personal responsibility. Accepting that you cannot, for whatever reason, carry a child to term or raise it is personal responsibility. But for a man to complain that a woman he knowingly had sex with is refusing to have his baby when he knew she didn't want a child, is petulant and foolish. You had a choice and you made it.

Aborting a baby you knew could be produced when you spread your legs isn't personal responsibility. Accepting the results of spreading your legs despite the results not being what you wanted is personal responsibility. Is it personally responsible to burn down your house if you can no longer pay for it?

Now for the rest of us. Since your argument is that the one letting go of the swimmers is the sole reason he is responsible for supporting the child, why are those of us that didn't let go of them with her responsible is she chooses to have a child she can't support? We didn't do the very thing for which you argue is the reason for the donor having to pay. Let me guess, you'll find some other excuse why a choice SHE made is not her responsibility to pay for.

She will be paying for that choice for the rest of her life. She will be raising that child, giving the baby her time, attention, and a goodly chunk of her worldly resources. If she needs some financial assistance to do this and the father isn't stepping up, you should be willing to help her through the rough patches since you think she did the right thing.

Americans think they're being patriotic by waving a flag. Canadians believe they're being patriotic by helping their fellow Canadians through rough patches. Love of country isn't something you wear on your lapel.

People are more important than things.

Progressives don't believe that.

They believe there are too many people, that animals and trees and dirt are every bit as valuable as human beings...and much, much more valuable than weak human beings..particularly inanimate objects and animals are more valuable than vulnerable women, babies, the elderly, and the disabled.

You haven't the vaguest clue what progressives believe. If not for progressives there would be no social assistance of any kind for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. Conservatives have fought against all of these things at every step of the way, saying leave it up to the church's or personal charity.

You personally rail against ever food stamps, Medicare, and every tax dollar spent on social programs. What a hypocrite!

Do you realize that if you progressives that claim to care so much for others would actually do personally what you don't mind forcing the rest of us to do what you say should happen wouldn't involve the government?

Things like this should be left up to personal charity. Why should you get to say something should be in place then demand someone else be forced to fund it because you wo't personally do what you say should be done.

You are the reason most women choose abortion