Kelsey Grammer: Reproductive rights is dishonest name for abortion

[Flash]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

Can I answer that for him Mike?

He is a stupid greedy Liberal that thinks everybody is entitled to have their bills paid for by somebody else.

No personal responsibility for greedy little assholes like him.

 

[denmark]

This issue is same old, same old. Seems like a waste of time.
Each side will stick to their opinion.
However, respondents may feel better by posting their ssme old stuff.
Any new arguments?
Like, why should I care what a stranger does in their own privacy that does not negatively impact others in society?

 

[jknowgood]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

I raised my on my on without child support.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

So you will ignore the baby after birth, but force the mother to have it. Not going to work. You force her to have it, then you have responsibility for its welfare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

Can I answer that for him Mike?

He is a stupid greedy Liberal that thinks everybody is entitled to have their bills paid for by somebody else.

No personal responsibility for greedy little assholes like him.

You are the ones who are so greedy you cannot put your wallets where your mouths are.

Since you won't, the state will. That is why the various states have programs for mothers and children to succeed.

And even though the greedy butts of the far right resent it and resist it, they fail to prevent it.

Yes, pro-life is another name for anti-child.

 

[Rustic]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Situational morality is the progressives motive...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

So you will ignore the baby after birth, but force the mother to have it. Not going to work. You force here to have it, then you have responsibility for its welfare.

Nope. Unless I’m the one that had sex with her it’s her and the fathers responsibility.

 

[EverCurious]

This issue is same old, same old. Seems like a waste of time.
Each side will stick to their opinion.
However, respondents may feel better by posting their ssme old stuff.
Any new arguments?
Like, why should I care what a stranger does in their own privacy that does not negatively impact others in society?

Too be fair, I'm pretty sure that having body parts ripped off in the womb is "negatively impacting others in society" - and that's just the opinion of "generic American's" who are pro-life, much less the unborn.

(For the record, I'm pro-choice, though not to the level of "it's a form of birth control." I just understand where the anti-abortion folks are coming from RE it's murder and I can sympathize with their belief on the matter. I personally look at the quality of that child's life - much as one might an unwanted puppy - and determine that perhaps they are better off unborn, which is truly horrible to think, but that is the reality of human nature [all animals really]; and perhaps unfortunately that is more so the case these days with "spoiled" "entitled" and "selfish" human nature America's wealth produces.)

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

Can I answer that for him Mike?

He is a stupid greedy Liberal that thinks everybody is entitled to have their bills paid for by somebody else.

No personal responsibility for greedy little assholes like him.

You are the ones who are so greedy you cannot put your wallets where your mouths are.

Since you won't, the state will. That is why the various states have programs for mothers and children to succeed.

And even though the greedy butts of the far right resent it and resist it, they fail to prevent it.

Yes, pro-life is another name for anti-child.

Such logic left wingers have. If you’re against killing children before they are born you’re anti-child. Think that one through.

 

[buttercup]

I completely agree with him that the term "reproductive rights" is so dang dishonest...I've been saying that for years!

Here's the thing, for people who don't get it. You have the right to reproduce. You also have the right to not reproduce. So you already have reproductive rights.

Once the baby comes into existence, you have already reproduced. So what you actually want is killing rights, not "reproductive rights."

So stop using that dishonest, misleading, idiotic phrase. Thank you.

 

[Flash]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Right to Chose means killing the little bastard because you are such an immoral and selfish prick that don't want to be bothered with him/her.

Then guarantee pre and post natal care for the fetus/thenbaby, and get the mother training that makes her a useful tax payyer.

If she is already a tax payer, it ain't your business, podjo.

Why is it on us to take over the parents responsibility?

Can I answer that for him Mike?

He is a stupid greedy Liberal that thinks everybody is entitled to have their bills paid for by somebody else.

No personal responsibility for greedy little assholes like him.

You are the ones who are so greedy you cannot put your wallets where your mouths are.

Since you won't, the state will. That is why the various states have programs for mothers and children to succeed.

And even though the greedy butts of the far right resent it and resist it, they fail to prevent it.

Yes, pro-life is another name for anti-child.

So Moon Bat, you idiot. I am walking down the beach and I see a child drowning in the surf.

It is certainly my responsibility to save the child''s life. It would be my responsibility as a human.

However, you being the greedy little Liberal asshole that you are, thinks it was my responsibility to provide for the upbringing of the child and to provide for its welfare for the rest of its life.

Sorry Moon Bat but it doesn't work that way. I will save a child's life like in working to prevent the mother from murdering it because it is always the right thing to do. However, it is not my responsibility to provide for the welfare of the child. It is the responsibility of the child's parents.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because you are a greedy little Moon Bat or are you just a moron?

Why are you filthy little Moon Bats always so immoral?

Why do you filthy little Moon Bats always demand that somebody else pay your bills?

What is your malfunction?

 

[Flash]

I completely agree with him that the term "reproductive rights" is so dang dishonest...I've been saying that for years!

Here's the thing, for people who don't get it. You have the right to reproduce. You also have the right to not reproduce. So you already have reproductive rights.

Once the baby comes into existence, you have already reproduced. So what you actually want is killing rights, not "reproductive rights."

So stop using that dishonest, misleading, idiotic phrase. Thank you.

That is what abortion on demand is really all about. The state sanctioned right to kill a child.

It is despicable.

 

[denmark]

This issue is same old, same old. Seems like a waste of time.
Each side will stick to their opinion.
However, respondents may feel better by posting their ssme old stuff.
Any new arguments?
Like, why should I care what a stranger does in their own privacy that does not negatively impact others in society?

Too be fair, I'm pretty sure that having body parts ripped off in the womb is "negatively impacting others in society" - and that's just the opinion of "generic American's" who are pro-life, much less the unborn.

(For the record, I'm pro-choice, though not to the level of "it's a form of birth control." I just understand where the anti-abortion folks are coming from RE it's murder and I can sympathize with their belief on the matter. I personally look at the quality of that child's life - much as one might an unwanted puppy - and determine that perhaps they are better off unborn, which is truly horrible to think, but that is the reality of human nature [all animals really]; and perhaps unfortunately that is more so the case these days with "spoiled" "entitled" and "selfish" human nature America's wealth produces.)

Your comments are very reasonable.
I take a practical approach, and i expand mistreatment & “murder” beyond humans ... to other sentient creatures that share our earth.
Life can be cruel, and we can’t save/help everyone, so we have to choose ... to save/assist those already fully sentient and within our ability to do so.

 

[EverCurious]

This issue is same old, same old. Seems like a waste of time.
Each side will stick to their opinion.
However, respondents may feel better by posting their ssme old stuff.
Any new arguments?
Like, why should I care what a stranger does in their own privacy that does not negatively impact others in society?

Too be fair, I'm pretty sure that having body parts ripped off in the womb is "negatively impacting others in society" - and that's just the opinion of "generic American's" who are pro-life, much less the unborn.

(For the record, I'm pro-choice, though not to the level of "it's a form of birth control." I just understand where the anti-abortion folks are coming from RE it's murder and I can sympathize with their belief on the matter. I personally look at the quality of that child's life - much as one might an unwanted puppy - and determine that perhaps they are better off unborn, which is truly horrible to think, but that is the reality of human nature [all animals really]; and perhaps unfortunately that is more so the case these days with "spoiled" "entitled" and "selfish" human nature America's wealth produces.)

Your comments are very reasonable.
I take a practical approach, and i expand mistreatment & “murder” beyond humans ... to other sentient creatures that share our earth.
Life can be cruel, and we can’t save/help everyone, so we have to choose ... to save/assist those already fully sentient and within our ability to do so.

I suppose that's the "difference," though I'm actually on the other end of your similar vein. I consider humans as animals rather than really being "special" in the grander scope of life. I'm agnostic and I do believe that we humans /could/ have some kind of "higher or grander purpose," however I [uncommonly it seems] do not believe that simply being born we [humans] are innately [or divinely] any "more worthy" of life nor greatness than any other common animal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. Unless I’m the one that had sex with her it’s her and the fathers responsibility.

Then you have nothing to say about an abortion.

Missouri-Mike: Such logic left wingers have. If you’re against killing children before they are born you’re anti-child. Think that one through.

You are anti-child if you insist it be born then walk away from it.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Can someone explain how this reproductive right morphs into a right to take my wallet?

It's... um... a right?

It's in the Constitution.

Right next to the one that says Illegals are entitled to your money too.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, it's funny how liberals come up with innocent-sounding terms to describe evil actions: "reproductive rights" to describe allowing a woman to kill her own baby for no valid reason. "marriage choice" for redefining marriage to include a deviant lifestyle that has long been known to be unhealthy, etc.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Pro-life is a fancy name for ignore the baby after birth.

Not really.

We would kindly expect you to pay for your own children.

If not, then pay for your own abortion.

 

[TheDude]

Liberals are so fucked they conclude, "well shit, a fetus isn't human" or "gosh, define human".

They do this to justify their wicked ways. Their inner-conscious recognizes such things as the following from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

Truths to be sacred and undeniable. That's ironic considering the liberal stance on abortion.


I say as a general rule we allow two 1st term abortions. The woman agrees to have her mothering parts removed the second time. Excludes health/crime concerns.

While I know abortion is wrong, forcing a woman to change her body is wrong too. That said, do it twice you lose the right to have children. Makes perfect sense to me, done and done. It sends the RIGHT message to our population, which is something lost on today's progressives, and to a lessor extent conservatives.

Same should be said for dicks. Two agreed abortions we're cutting you off as well. Same for runaways. Don't comply there's a penalty. The beauty of DNA and database...........Require the woman to identify the father(s) to receive an abortion.

 

[Lysistrata]

Another stupid thread by people pretending that a zygote/fetus is a baby. These are the same boobs who want to stop birth control. Figures.