LESBIANS: What Will They Think of Next?

[GaryDog]

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:

SHE made the choice to do what it takes to get pregnant yet you want to blame the rest of us for EXPECTING her to accept the responsibility for having done so.

What you're proposing would be like someone taking out a loan at a bank then expecting the person to make the monthly payments associated with doing so.

Except the man, too, took out the loan.

Where are his payments?

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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!!

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?

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.

Nonsensical. Only heterosexual marriages can produce children at all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A married lesbian couple broke up in Canada recently. Suddenly one of them took 'their' children and went on the lam, left the country. What's funny is that she is quoted as saying, "‘At some point the system needs to look at the straight facts and see that (the child) is better off with me."

One needs to look at the straight facts, is it? Seems to me that if she'd looked at the straight facts from the start, she wouldn't be in this predicament.

Lesbian mother from South Tyneside left her wife and 'abducted' their daughter | Daily Mail Online

They are starting to act like straight couples.

Not really. Straight couples don't have to wonder how to produce children.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Too many today have the mindset that they'll just do whatever with whomever whenever they please and if they happen to get pregnant, abortion is the go to way out.

That may be true of men, but it certainly isn't true of women. The only woman I know of who went about using abortion as a method birth control, and who had multiple abortions throughout her life and ultimately never had children was a conservative, who told every she was opposed to women having abortions.

Every other woman I know of who had an abortion, thought long and hard about it and took the whole matter very seriously. Most never had another abortion. But all agreed it was the best solution available, and in the same circumstances, they would do it again.

That first paragraph sounds like a load.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

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!!

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?

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.

Nonsensical. Only heterosexual marriages can produce children at all.

Are you opposed to women beyond menopause getting married? How about the infertile, or impotent?

Are you realizing that your logic is falling apart yet?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

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!!

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?

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.

Nonsensical. Only heterosexual marriages can produce children at all.

Are you opposed to women beyond menopause getting married? How about the infertile, or impotent?

Are you realizing that your logic is falling apart yet?

Nothing changes these women from women into something else.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

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:

SHE made the choice to do what it takes to get pregnant yet you want to blame the rest of us for EXPECTING her to accept the responsibility for having done so.

What you're proposing would be like someone taking out a loan at a bank then expecting the person to make the monthly payments associated with doing so.

Except the man, too, took out the loan.

Where are his payments?

The man is told what the woman does with her body is her choice and no one else's business.

When the sperm donor doesn't pay and the mother can't pay, why are the payments to support someone else's kid placed on the backs of those that didn't take out the loan? In other words, why is the responsibility of supporting the kids of a woman who says what she does with her body placed on those unassociated with the situation when she can't pay?

 

[GaryDog]

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:

SHE made the choice to do what it takes to get pregnant yet you want to blame the rest of us for EXPECTING her to accept the responsibility for having done so.

What you're proposing would be like someone taking out a loan at a bank then expecting the person to make the monthly payments associated with doing so.

Except the man, too, took out the loan.

Where are his payments?

The man is told what the woman does with her body is her choice and no one else's business.

When the sperm donor doesn't pay and the mother can't pay, why are the payments to support someone else's kid placed on the backs of those that didn't take out the loan? In other words, why is the responsibility of supporting the kids of a woman who says what she does with her body placed on those unassociated with the situation when she can't pay?

So just let the child starve?

Wow, you must be a Christian or something.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

You lefties sure like to make demands about what people should stop doing when you don't like what they have to say. Funny thing is not one of you cowards has yet to back up those demands.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

There's no constitutional right to an abortion, killer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Too many today have the mindset that they'll just do whatever with whomever whenever they please and if they happen to get pregnant, abortion is the go to way out.

That may be true of men, but it certainly isn't true of women. The only woman I know of who went about using abortion as a method birth control, and who had multiple abortions throughout her life and ultimately never had children was a conservative, who told every she was opposed to women having abortions.

Every other woman I know of who had an abortion, thought long and hard about it and took the whole matter very seriously. Most never had another abortion. But all agreed it was the best solution available, and in the same circumstances, they would do it again.

Over 90% of abortions are used for birth control. Statements made by pro abortion folks indicate they think it's used for birth control.

Provide the name of the person you know that did what you say she did. I want to verify what you say.

How long someone thought about it is irrelevant when it comes to abortion being used for birth control in over 90% of the cases.

Strange how those that kill would kill again.

...and I am sure that you have a link for that 90% statistic. You just forgot to post it.

 

[Conservative65]

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:

SHE made the choice to do what it takes to get pregnant yet you want to blame the rest of us for EXPECTING her to accept the responsibility for having done so.

What you're proposing would be like someone taking out a loan at a bank then expecting the person to make the monthly payments associated with doing so.

Except the man, too, took out the loan.

Where are his payments?

The man is told what the woman does with her body is her choice and no one else's business.

When the sperm donor doesn't pay and the mother can't pay, why are the payments to support someone else's kid placed on the backs of those that didn't take out the loan? In other words, why is the responsibility of supporting the kids of a woman who says what she does with her body placed on those unassociated with the situation when she can't pay?

So just let the child starve?

Wow, you must be a Christian or something.

I'm one of those that didn't make the choice and was told to butt out of it when it was made. What that makes me is someone NOT responsible for the results of the choice.

If that child starves, it's on people like you.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

There's no constitutional right to an abortion, killer.

Hmmmm....should I believe a half-literate message board troll, or the Supreme Court?

 

[Conservative65]

Too many today have the mindset that they'll just do whatever with whomever whenever they please and if they happen to get pregnant, abortion is the go to way out.

That may be true of men, but it certainly isn't true of women. The only woman I know of who went about using abortion as a method birth control, and who had multiple abortions throughout her life and ultimately never had children was a conservative, who told every she was opposed to women having abortions.

Every other woman I know of who had an abortion, thought long and hard about it and took the whole matter very seriously. Most never had another abortion. But all agreed it was the best solution available, and in the same circumstances, they would do it again.

Over 90% of abortions are used for birth control. Statements made by pro abortion folks indicate they think it's used for birth control.

Provide the name of the person you know that did what you say she did. I want to verify what you say.

How long someone thought about it is irrelevant when it comes to abortion being used for birth control in over 90% of the cases.

Strange how those that kill would kill again.

...and I am sure that you have a link for that 90% statistic. You just forgot to post it.

Actually I have. You must have missed it. In fact, one of those making a similar statement to yours said "thank you" for doing it.

 

[GaryDog]

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:

SHE made the choice to do what it takes to get pregnant yet you want to blame the rest of us for EXPECTING her to accept the responsibility for having done so.

What you're proposing would be like someone taking out a loan at a bank then expecting the person to make the monthly payments associated with doing so.

Except the man, too, took out the loan.

Where are his payments?

The man is told what the woman does with her body is her choice and no one else's business.

When the sperm donor doesn't pay and the mother can't pay, why are the payments to support someone else's kid placed on the backs of those that didn't take out the loan? In other words, why is the responsibility of supporting the kids of a woman who says what she does with her body placed on those unassociated with the situation when she can't pay?

So just let the child starve?

Wow, you must be a Christian or something.

I'm one of those that didn't make the choice and was told to butt out of it when it was made. What that makes me is someone NOT responsible for the results of the choice.

If that child starves, it's on people like you.

So you ARE a Christian. Should've guessed when you ignored the suffering in starvation, and focused on blame.

 

[Conservative65]

Not one of those 50 million was unwanted.

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

There's no constitutional right to an abortion, killer.

Hmmmm....should I believe a half-literate message board troll, or the Supreme Court?

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution where the word abortion is written.

 

[GaryDog]

Really, you wanted to adopt them ALL?

I think his point is all of them can be adopted.

But Leftists like you think in static terms when it comes to abortion....and everything else. 50 million abortions doesn't translate into 50 million surplus babies if abortion becomes illegal. It also doesn't translate into 50 million back ally abortions. Making something illegal and removing social acceptance eliminates that something from the list of options that socially conscious, law abiding people will consider. Most people will decide between adoption or finding a way to be responsible for the life they brought into the world; the latter choice holding sway in most cases. People abort because they can. Remove the option and people will either try harder to not make babies or failing at that, raise the child or put it up for adoption.

Oh and I'm sure you use this same argument when it comes to gun control.

Shut the fuck up. You're completely full of shit.

There's no constitutional right to an abortion, killer.

Hmmmm....should I believe a half-literate message board troll, or the Supreme Court?

Perhaps you can show me in the Constitution where the word abortion is written.

That's now how you decide what is or is not constitutional.