Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.
It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...
...silence... *crickets*
So can death, you idiot.
You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.
Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.
Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.
Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.
It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.
It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...
...silence... *crickets*
So can death, you idiot.
You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.
Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.
Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.
Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.
True, some children have had closeted gay parents. The "closet" was the hiding of the delusion. Many admitted there problem and refused to succumb to their delusion, much like an individual with certain eating disorders will stop the distructive behvior by seeking help.
Nothing new here. It is actually admirable that the "gay" parent refusal to act out his delusion in front of the child as not to encourage the child into this, or any other delusional behavior.
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
Sure there is. If all 50 million abortions over the past several decades had been brought to term, our society would be fucked. TOTALLY. FUCKED. Think about 50 million unwanted children born to poor parents without the means or willingness to raise them.
I agree 100% with this point. As I was saying in an earlier response .... 'we' admit that fathers who move on (and away) after a divorce are not doing their children any favours. In fact we often criticize them for being "dead beats". Yes, yes, yes. But then we guarantee a child will have no father in adoptions in lesbian circumstances. Are we not creating a double standard for the sake of political correctness?With one glaring exception: they DO NOT PROVIDE EITHER A MOTHER OR FATHER, VITAL TO THE CHILDREN INVOLVED in any marriage. Yeah, I know...single parents...yadda yadda yadda... Marriage exists to remedy single parenthood with lures of benefits. It doesn't exist to AUGMENT single parent woes (the missing gendered parent) with lures of benefits!!Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack. The whole schtick about adoptive parents being less loving or capable is bs. And gay parents are no less able than straight. Courts already give biological parents priority in custody over non-biological parents (step parents.) Courts that formerly did not recognize marriage and divorce decrees from states with gay marriage now have to change.
And yeah .... 'who is to say that the heterosexual relationship will not end in a divorce anyway ..... yada, yada, yada" ... but we give a child no chance for a 'father/mother' (male/female) parent arrangement if we approve of same sex adoptions.
And then there are further complications as children grow up to be adults and feel a need to find their real parents in any adoption. Personally, I'd rather find out that my parents didn't want me, or they were drunks, or criminals .... than to be told, "Well, you have no parents ... you were born in a test tube" or "You are a product of a sperm donor and some fertile woman's womb, then handed over to your mother ....... or is she your father?"
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
Sure there is. If all 50 million abortions over the past several decades had been brought to term, our society would be fucked. TOTALLY. FUCKED. Think about 50 million unwanted children born to poor parents without the means or willingness to raise them.
Unless, not having that "out", many of those pregnancies would not exist in the first place.
Just a thought
.jpg)
It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.
It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...
...silence... *crickets*
So can death, you idiot.
You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.
Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.
Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.
Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.
True, some children have had closeted gay parents. The "closet" was the hiding of the delusion. Many admitted there problem and refused to succumb to their delusion, much like an individual with certain eating disorders will stop the distructive behvior by seeking help.
Nothing new here. It is actually admirable that the "gay" parent refusal to act out his delusion in front of the child as not to encourage the child into this, or any other delusional behavior.
The only possible explanation for this kind of ignorance is YOUR OWN closeted homosexuality.
The state does not have a constitutional power to ensure optimal situations for every child. .
It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.
It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...
...silence... *crickets*
So can death, you idiot.
You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.
Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.
Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.
Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.
True, some children have had closeted gay parents. The "closet" was the hiding of the delusion. Many admitted there problem and refused to succumb to their delusion, much like an individual with certain eating disorders will stop the distructive behvior by seeking help.
Nothing new here. It is actually admirable that the "gay" parent refusal to act out his delusion in front of the child as not to encourage the child into this, or any other delusional behavior.
The only possible explanation for this kind of ignorance is YOUR OWN closeted homosexuality.
Homosexuality is simply a delusion, one that I do not participate in.
All humans are, by biological default, Heterosexual. That is a biological fact. Choosing to "opt out", is the delusion that one can, in and by themselves, change biology.
Impossible.
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
Sure there is. If all 50 million abortions over the past several decades had been brought to term, our society would be fucked. TOTALLY. FUCKED. Think about 50 million unwanted children born to poor parents without the means or willingness to raise them.
Unless, not having that "out", many of those pregnancies would not exist in the first place.
Just a thought
So the idea of strapping a pregnant woman and enslaving her to 9 months of carrying a child to term is appealing to you, from a socio-political standpoint?
Check this map of countries where abortion is legal/illegal, and tell me what you see:
It's true that Obergefell found there was no rational basis to find heterosexual marriages produced better kids than gay marriages. The second clause of your post (following the ":") is not a complete sentence and is incomprehensible.The state does not have a constitutional power to ensure optimal situations for every child. .
They DID have that constitutional power until June 2015 (they still do, Obergefell was illegal because no contract can exist to the detriment of children): the lure of benefits for single parents to marry in order for the children already around or soon to come to have BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER in the married home...for the child's most optimal shot at a healthy life.
It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...
...silence... *crickets*
So can death, you idiot.
You realize of course, that step-parents are also very bad for children, many step-children have opening hostile relationships with their step-parents, and there is a very high rate of child abuse - physical, sexual, and emotional, in homes with step-parents. Why aren't you speaking out against step-parents. There is a much higher rate of screwed up kids who were raised with step-parents in the home than those raised in openly gay households.
Your arguments have no validity. Since the dawn of time, there have always been instances of children growing up without one gender parent or the other. You wrap your homophobia in the guise of "consider the children, for the love of God, consider the children", but in reality, you've become unhinged at the idea of children having gay parents.
Here's the reality. Children have always had gay parents. They were just in the closet before. Children have always grown up in less than ideal household arrangements, but it is far more important that a child grow up feeling loved, protected and secure, than it is that they come from perfect family situations.
Get over your homophobia. You've lost. We're not going back to your hate-fueled paranoia.
True, some children have had closeted gay parents. The "closet" was the hiding of the delusion. Many admitted there problem and refused to succumb to their delusion, much like an individual with certain eating disorders will stop the distructive behvior by seeking help.
Nothing new here. It is actually admirable that the "gay" parent refusal to act out his delusion in front of the child as not to encourage the child into this, or any other delusional behavior.
The only possible explanation for this kind of ignorance is YOUR OWN closeted homosexuality.
Homosexuality is simply a delusion, one that I do not participate in.
All humans are, by biological default, Heterosexual. That is a biological fact. Choosing to "opt out", is the delusion that one can, in and by themselves, change biology.
Impossible.
Nothing to say here except that you're wrong. It's not biological fact. People -- and lots of animals -- are born homosexual in many cases.
It's true that Obergefell found there was no rational basis to find heterosexual marriages produced better kids than gay marriages. The second clause of your post (following the ":") is not a complete sentence and is incomprehensible.The state does not have a constitutional power to ensure optimal situations for every child. .
They DID have that constitutional power until June 2015 (they still do, Obergefell was illegal because no contract can exist to the detriment of children): the lure of benefits for single parents to marry in order for the children already around or soon to come to have BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER in the married home...for the child's most optimal shot at a healthy life.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
So you view forcing a child upon a woman who cannot afford to have or care for the child a good idea? Your view of women ("spreading her legs") is misogynistic and disgusting.
Having a baby is not punishment for promiscuity and shows your misogyny. Maybe men should be punished for having sex and getting women pregnant when they don't want to have a baby. Because the last time this kind of discussion came up, you guys were all about blaming the women for trapping men with pregnancy, or "spreading their legs". Either way, in your misogynistic view, a woman having an abortion is a slut who deserves to be punished.
How about actually ready up on who has abortions. 60% are married or in committed relationships. 80% are poor or low income.
How would you have felt if your wife told you that you could no longer have sex because she doesn't want more children?
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
Sure there is. If all 50 million abortions over the past several decades had been brought to term, our society would be fucked. TOTALLY. FUCKED. Think about 50 million unwanted children born to poor parents without the means or willingness to raise them.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
So you view forcing a child upon a woman who cannot afford to have or care for the child a good idea? Your view of women ("spreading her legs") is misogynistic and disgusting.
Having a baby is not punishment for promiscuity and shows your misogyny. Maybe men should be punished for having sex and getting women pregnant when they don't want to have a baby. Because the last time this kind of discussion came up, you guys were all about blaming the women for trapping men with pregnancy, or "spreading their legs". Either way, in your misogynistic view, a woman having an abortion is a slut who deserves to be punished.
How about actually ready up on who has abortions. 60% are married or in committed relationships. 80% are poor or low income.
How would you have felt if your wife told you that you could no longer have sex because she doesn't want more children?
Since she made the decision to do what it takes to produce a child, she isn't being forced to do a damn thing.
My view of women spreading her legs is a description, although not PC to you, on what happens when she does what it takes to produce a child.
I wish the sperm donors that did produce all these children would be responsible for them so those of us unassociated with the situation wouldn't have to.
A woman having an abortion because she doesn't like the results of a choice she made to spread her legs is an irresponsible bitch.
Your percentages do not matter. Unless the woman was raped, the percentage that get pregnant do so as a RESULT of an ACTION they CHOSE to take whether that result was intended or not.
No one is saying they shouldn't have sex. I said is they CHOOSE to do so, accept responsibility for the results and killing the result isn't being responsible. It's being selfish.
The decision to have no more kids was one my wife and I made together. In order to prevent the likelihood of it happening, we made a decision together for me to do what needed to be done. It was cheaper. However, despite doing that, we would have NEVER considered abortion had she become pregnant. That's what responsible people do. They accept results of an action because they chose to take that action.
Yet the evidence proves otherwise, this thread a case in point. When the two break up, the real mommy takes the kid from the fake mommy. It's simple biology. You may not have experienced the tumult that reveals who really loves who, so you can keep your perfect delusion, but others have. Parents who adopt never really treat the child like their own natural offspring and the adopted child is sensitive enough to know that and be hurt by it....
Even when they're loudly denouncing anyone who suggests their parents don't really love them like biological offspring.
Once instance where this happened doesn't make it universal.
And since you're a staunch anti-abortionist, you're basically saying that there is no point in adopting out unwanted children because they will never know the love and security of a home with biological parents. Huge argument for ending their unwanted lives before they begin.
Parents can and do love their adopted children every bit as much as their biological children. My mother used to tell me that being adopted was special because if someone gave birth to you, they were stuck with you whether they wanted you or not, but I was chosen. Out of all of the little boys and girls in the world they could have chosen to be their child, they chose me.
My parents had 5 biological children, and me. My oldest sister always felt they loved and favoured me more, because I was their last baby.
So what you're saying is my entire life has been a lie. I don't think so. As you said, a child knows whether they were loved or not, and I KNOW how much my parents loved me. I was chosen.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
Sure there is. If all 50 million abortions over the past several decades had been brought to term, our society would be fucked. TOTALLY. FUCKED. Think about 50 million unwanted children born to poor parents without the means or willingness to raise them.
Unless, not having that "out", many of those pregnancies would not exist in the first place.
Just a thought
"Better kids"? I wasn't talking about producing better kids. Were you? I suppose if I were backed into a corner and forced to put a finger on it, I might say 'self-confident kids'........ As I was saying in an earlier response .... 'we' admit that fathers who move on (and away) after a divorce are not doing their children any favours. In fact we often criticize them for being "dead beats". Yes, yes, yes. But then we guarantee a child will have no father in adoptions in lesbian circumstances. Are we not creating a double standard for the sake of political correctness?
And yeah .... 'who is to say that the heterosexual relationship will not end in a divorce anyway ..... yada, yada, yada" ... but we give a child no chance for a 'father/mother' (male/female) parent arrangement if we approve of same sex adoptions.
And then there are further complications as children grow up to be adults and feel a need to find their real parents in any adoption. Personally, I'd rather find out that my parents didn't want me, or they were drunks, or criminals .... than to be told, "Well, you have no parents ... you were born in a test tube" or "You are a product of a sperm donor and some fertile woman's womb, then handed over to your mother ....... or is she your father?"
The state does not have a constitutional power to ensure optimal situations for every child. Adults have a constitutional right to procreate and/or marry. The state may restrict those rights IF it can be proven that one type of marriage is inherently dangerous to children, but opponents of gay marriage, and even one parent households, cannot prove even that heterosexual marriages produce "better" kids.
There is no argument that justifies abortion. When someone chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't like the results of having spread her legs, that isn't justifiable. It's a cop out from being responsible for one's actions.
So you view forcing a child upon a woman who cannot afford to have or care for the child a good idea? Your view of women ("spreading her legs") is misogynistic and disgusting.
Having a baby is not punishment for promiscuity and shows your misogyny. Maybe men should be punished for having sex and getting women pregnant when they don't want to have a baby. Because the last time this kind of discussion came up, you guys were all about blaming the women for trapping men with pregnancy, or "spreading their legs". Either way, in your misogynistic view, a woman having an abortion is a slut who deserves to be punished.
How about actually ready up on who has abortions. 60% are married or in committed relationships. 80% are poor or low income.
How would you have felt if your wife told you that you could no longer have sex because she doesn't want more children?
Since she made the decision to do what it takes to produce a child, she isn't being forced to do a damn thing.
My view of women spreading her legs is a description, although not PC to you, on what happens when she does what it takes to produce a child.
I wish the sperm donors that did produce all these children would be responsible for them so those of us unassociated with the situation wouldn't have to.
A woman having an abortion because she doesn't like the results of a choice she made to spread her legs is an irresponsible bitch.
Your percentages do not matter. Unless the woman was raped, the percentage that get pregnant do so as a RESULT of an ACTION they CHOSE to take whether that result was intended or not.
No one is saying they shouldn't have sex. I said is they CHOOSE to do so, accept responsibility for the results and killing the result isn't being responsible. It's being selfish.
The decision to have no more kids was one my wife and I made together. In order to prevent the likelihood of it happening, we made a decision together for me to do what needed to be done. It was cheaper. However, despite doing that, we would have NEVER considered abortion had she become pregnant. That's what responsible people do. They accept results of an action because they chose to take that action.
...if only everyone was as righteous as you...{sigh}
