Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[Conservative65]

Nice meltdown.

Now tell me, if the fetus is a person according to the Constitution, why do people like you want a Constitutional amendment to declare the fetus a person?

Why do you want something put into the Constitution that you also insist is already there?

To use your words, stop lying about what I believe.

I don't think there needs to be an amendment. I already believe it's a person.

Show me where I said I wanted such an amendment. You'll have the same chance of finding it and you do the word abortion in the Constitution. I haven't said such a thing nor is the word abortion there. As the typical dumbass, you'll probably look.

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Where does it say that specifically? Again, another claim you can't support with any evidence.

 

[Conservative65]

You want the choice but not the responsibility that comes with it yet you think doing so means they'll make better choices.

I didn't say either one was better. What I said is better is for her to pay for whatever she chooses to do.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're saying.

You clearly don't support the concept of personal responsibility.

 

[Conservative65]

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Individual freedoms are in the Constitution

And some, like RoeVWade that need to be overturned, an abomination, just as slavery.

Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment.

Including those States that fought for the Union? That refutes your argument that the entire war was about slavery. If it was, SLAVE STATES like Missouri and Kentucky would have fought for the Confederacy. Also, W. Virginia wouldn't have been admitted as a SLAVE state to the union in 1863. So much for that claim of why the war was fought.

If slavery wasn't the issue, there would have been no secession and no Civil war.

If slavery was the only issue, Kentucky and Missouri would have seceded.

Another moron Liberal that has been indoctrinated.

 

[Conservative65]

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Individual freedoms are in the Constitution

And some, like RoeVWade that need to be overturned, an abomination, just as slavery.

A woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy is not going to be overturned anytime soon, if ever at all.

When is her responsibility for the choices she makes with her body going to be hers alone since she made the choice?

They already are. Stop making it your business and stay the fuck out of hers.

Not when those who choose to have children expect taxpayers to feed them when she can't.

I'll stop making her choice to have kids my business when every one that makes that choice supports their own kids.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxpayers are forced to support the children a woman chose to have with her body and she can't afford to raise. The choice to have them is as much of a choice as having an abortion. She made it, let her pay. If she can't, let her and her choices do without. If you want her to have the sole choice, give her the sole responsibility or the choice is nothing more than doing without having to pay the price.

So you're ok letting such babies starve?

Baby killer.

I'm OK with letting the one who made the choice be responsible for her choices. It's much the same attitude that you Liberals have when it comes to abortion. You say that supporting choice isn't the same as supporting abortion. I say that expecting someone to pay the price for a choice they told the rest of us is called personal responsibility. If their choice is none of my business, then I'm willing to stay out of the result, too.

Then you're ok letting babies starve to death.

You're a baby killer.

I'm OK with the woman making the choice being responsible for the choice. Since you think her choices including the ones she said weren't your business are your responsibility when she can't afford it, if they do, it's on you. You support the concept of giving her money for making bad choices. I don't. I simply expect her to be responsible for the ones she made. It ends there for me since her choices aren't my place to fund no matter the result.

Since I'm not paying for her abortion, why would I care?

And neither are you if she's getting an abortion.

You ARE paying, however, if she gives birth to that baby. You're paying for her delivery and you're paying for the child's upbringing, whether she keeps her baby or not.

If not paying for it were your concern, you'd be personally driving her to Planned Parenthood.

And there is the problem. If she chooses to give birth, she should pay or do without. It's not the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for her choice when she said to butt out of it.

 

[Faun]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

The placenta.

 

[Conservative65]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

 

[Faun]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So? That's her choice. How fortunate is she to live in a country where she's in charge of her own body and free to make such choices?

The body inside of her body is not her body.

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

Then why, when her choice is to have the baby, are the rest of us forced to support it if she can't?

Because we don't let children starve in this country.

 

[Faun]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

So? Her rights to own her own body supersede the non-existent rights of the "living body" inside her.

 

[Conservative65]

‘I saw little arms, little legs, and a head!’: Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

Imagine that. The baby killers don't want women to be made to see the HUMAN BEING they are killing when having an abortion.

So? That's her choice. How fortunate is she to live in a country where she's in charge of her own body and free to make such choices?

The body inside of her body is not her body.

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

Then why, when her choice is to have the baby, are the rest of us forced to support it if she can't?

Because we don't let children starve in this country.

Apparently you don't believe in personal responsibility. Since you don't, you're welcome to support her kids. MY kids are the only ones I'm responsible for.

 

[Conservative65]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

So? Her rights to own her own body supersede the non-existent rights of the "living body" inside her.

Yet her responsibility for the little bastard she can't feed belong to someone else? Not how it works.

 

[Faun]

To use your words, stop lying about what I believe.

I don't think there needs to be an amendment. I already believe it's a person.

Show me where I said I wanted such an amendment. You'll have the same chance of finding it and you do the word abortion in the Constitution. I haven't said such a thing nor is the word abortion there. As the typical dumbass, you'll probably look.

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Where does it say that specifically? Again, another claim you can't support with any evidence.

Let's start with the first item .... "unborn children are not citizens"

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are only two classifications of citizens ... born or naturalized in the United States. Unborn are neither.

 

[Conservative65]

So you're content to leave the fetus unprotected by the Constitution? lol, I stand corrected, baby killer.

The Constitution was amended to include both women and blacks

They never got around to including fetuses

Since the Constitution covers human and what you want to call a fetus in order to justify killing it is a human, it's covered. No need for anything other than what we have.

Sorry, but unborn children are not citizens, have no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The Constitution covers born humans.

Where does it say that specifically? Again, another claim you can't support with any evidence.

Let's start with the first item .... "unborn children are not citizens"

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There are only two classifications of citizens ... born or naturalized in the United States. Unborn are neither.

They are humans therefore, according to the Liberal mindset have rights.

 

[Faun]

Where in my post did I say it was? I said she's in charge of her own body. She can't be forced to remain pregnant against her will.

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

So? Her rights to own her own body supersede the non-existent rights of the "living body" inside her.

Yet her responsibility for the little bastard she can't feed belong to someone else? Not how it works.

Actually, that's exactly how it works. Again .... we don't let children starve. I don't care how heartless conservatives are.

 

[Faun]

You want the choice but not the responsibility that comes with it yet you think doing so means they'll make better choices.

I didn't say either one was better. What I said is better is for her to pay for whatever she chooses to do.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're saying.

You clearly don't support the concept of personal responsibility.

Hisses the rightard who already demonstrated he has no fucking clue of what he's talking about.

 

[Conservative65]

What part of her body is no longer there when she gets an abortion?

Nothing stays inside her she doesn't want there.

But it's not her, it's another living being.

So? Her rights to own her own body supersede the non-existent rights of the "living body" inside her.

Yet her responsibility for the little bastard she can't feed belong to someone else? Not how it works.

Actually, that's exactly how it works. Again .... we don't let children starve. I don't care how heartless conservatives are.

I don't let mine starve and they are the only ones that matter to me.

You don't seem to care that you oppose personal responsibility. I bet you think someone else being forced to pay for a person's mistakes will give them an incentive to do better next time. You likely do fool.

 

[Conservative65]

You want the choice but not the responsibility that comes with it yet you think doing so means they'll make better choices.

I didn't say either one was better. What I said is better is for her to pay for whatever she chooses to do.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're saying.

You clearly don't support the concept of personal responsibility.

Hisses the rightard who already demonstrated he has no fucking clue of what he's talking about.

You have indicated that you aren't willing to hold the person making a choice she said was no one else's business responsible for that choice. It's nothing else but opposing personal responsibility. If she makes the choice to have kids and you don't hold her accountable for the results, you oppose personal responsibility.

 

[Faun]

Individual freedoms are in the Constitution

And some, like RoeVWade that need to be overturned, an abomination, just as slavery.

Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment.

Including those States that fought for the Union? That refutes your argument that the entire war was about slavery. If it was, SLAVE STATES like Missouri and Kentucky would have fought for the Confederacy. Also, W. Virginia wouldn't have been admitted as a SLAVE state to the union in 1863. So much for that claim of why the war was fought.

If slavery wasn't the issue, there would have been no secession and no Civil war.

If slavery was the only issue, Kentucky and Missouri would have seceded.

Another moron Liberal that has been indoctrinated.

Nonsense. The border states were caught in the middle and tried for a time to remain neutral. Again, the point you can't evade ... if slavery was not an issue, the south would not have seceded and there would not have been a civil war.

 

[Faun]

Individual freedoms are in the Constitution

And some, like RoeVWade that need to be overturned, an abomination, just as slavery.

A woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy is not going to be overturned anytime soon, if ever at all.

When is her responsibility for the choices she makes with her body going to be hers alone since she made the choice?

They already are. Stop making it your business and stay the fuck out of hers.

Not when those who choose to have children expect taxpayers to feed them when she can't.

I'll stop making her choice to have kids my business when every one that makes that choice supports their own kids.

So you bitch if the the woman has an abortion and you bitch if she doesn't. The only common denominator is that you're a bitch.

 

[Faun]

So you're ok letting such babies starve?

Baby killer.

I'm OK with letting the one who made the choice be responsible for her choices. It's much the same attitude that you Liberals have when it comes to abortion. You say that supporting choice isn't the same as supporting abortion. I say that expecting someone to pay the price for a choice they told the rest of us is called personal responsibility. If their choice is none of my business, then I'm willing to stay out of the result, too.

Then you're ok letting babies starve to death.

You're a baby killer.

I'm OK with the woman making the choice being responsible for the choice. Since you think her choices including the ones she said weren't your business are your responsibility when she can't afford it, if they do, it's on you. You support the concept of giving her money for making bad choices. I don't. I simply expect her to be responsible for the ones she made. It ends there for me since her choices aren't my place to fund no matter the result.

Since I'm not paying for her abortion, why would I care?

And neither are you if she's getting an abortion.

You ARE paying, however, if she gives birth to that baby. You're paying for her delivery and you're paying for the child's upbringing, whether she keeps her baby or not.

If not paying for it were your concern, you'd be personally driving her to Planned Parenthood.

And there is the problem. If she chooses to give birth, she should pay or do without. It's not the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for her choice when she said to butt out of it.

So you're in favor of her having the abortion then, right? Since that won't cost you anything.