Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[Faun]

I evaded nothing, ya fruit loop dingus. And the only abortions funded with tax dollars are in cases of rape, incest, and/or life of the mother. That amounts to roughly one percent of all abortions.

So you're in favor of them, right? They cost you nothing; which is far less than your costs if she has the baby.

Percentage is irrelevant. Tax money still goes for abortions.

If people like you held women who have kids responsible for their choices, her having kids would cost us nothing. That's the issue.

Of course percent matters. Just how crazy are you? Virtually no abortions are paid for with tax dollars and the ones which are, are under extreme circumstances where in almost all cases, the women were either impregnated against their will or their life is in jeopardy.

99% of abortions are the choice of the woman. Those are not paid for with tax dollars.

You're so fucking deranged, you bitch about helping out women who were raped or whose life is in danger from their own pregnancy.

You're the best opponent for conservatism.

I don't care what her situation is. If she makes the choice, it's her responsibility to pay the price whether it be in 1% of the cases or 100% of the cases.

It's not called helping. Help involves a choice not a mandate. If you want to help her, do it with your money.

fucking dildo, women don't choose to be raped.

Women don't choose to for their pregnancies to threaten their lives.

Those are the abortions you're bitching about paying for.

You're even more deranged than I thought.

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

 

[Faun]

And some conservatives wonder why so many people view them as racists.

Thanks!

And btw, no, I don't oppose the father paying for his child. Let's just chalk this up to yet another instance where you demonstrate you have no fucking clue of what you're speaking about.

And you wonder why you're viewed as opposing personal responsibility. You claim you want the sperm donor to pay but it's interesting that you never mentioned him until I did. You did mention that taxpayers who didn't produce the child should pay but not oner mention of the other party involved in the creation. I call bullshit on your claim and say you are lying.

Many things go unmentioned until discussed. That doesn't mean I don't support them.

Regardless, the primary concern is the children once they are born.

Again, irregardless of how heartless you conservatives are, we don't let children in America go hungry.

By the way, no one is seeking your approval for that. Children will be fed even if it kills you.

If you so adamant about it, you would have mentioned it earlier on.

Irregardless? That's a double negative and a word that even dictionaries say is non standard and an incorrect usage of the word that should actually be use.

Heartless can't be an issue. I can't be heartless on something that isn't my responsibility. All I can do is expect those that should be to be responsible for their own choices.

Typical irresponsible Liberal mindset opposing personal responsibility. You say you don't oppose it but your belief that one person should be forced to fund the choices of another says otherwise.

"Adamant" is your word, not mine. You can't win an argument so you're reduced to making shit up. See how that works? I said I support fathers being responsible for their own. I also recognize that's not always the case and I don't believe kids should go hungry when the parents are not responsible. It's called compassion -- a gene not found in neanderthal conservatives.

You didn't mention anyone but taxpayers until I brought them up. If you actually believed what you said, you would have done it earlier.

Compassion doesn't come from thinking others should fund what you support. Compassion comes from a willful choice by the giver not a mandate by the taker and those that support the taking. In other words, since you support a mandate, you aren't compassionate or you would simply provide for those you think deserve it, do it privately, and keep the rest of us out of it.

Your derangement persists. Unbelievably, you actually believe I don't support something I don't mention here until it comes up in conversation. I haven't said where I stand on affirmative action. Guess you think that means I don't support it, huh?

 

[aris2chat]

ultra sounds are required, as is a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion.
even home/mail abortions require the woman has had an ultrasound.

A woman should take time to consider what she wants and her options. No one should take the process lightly, even at home.
But no one should have the ability to force a women or deny her right to make her own choice. Her body, her choice if she wants to share it, to use her body as a host for 9 months. It is up to her to figure out if she is ready to be a mother.

 

[Conservative65]

And you wonder why you're viewed as opposing personal responsibility. You claim you want the sperm donor to pay but it's interesting that you never mentioned him until I did. You did mention that taxpayers who didn't produce the child should pay but not oner mention of the other party involved in the creation. I call bullshit on your claim and say you are lying.

Many things go unmentioned until discussed. That doesn't mean I don't support them.

Regardless, the primary concern is the children once they are born.

Again, irregardless of how heartless you conservatives are, we don't let children in America go hungry.

By the way, no one is seeking your approval for that. Children will be fed even if it kills you.

If you so adamant about it, you would have mentioned it earlier on.

Irregardless? That's a double negative and a word that even dictionaries say is non standard and an incorrect usage of the word that should actually be use.

Heartless can't be an issue. I can't be heartless on something that isn't my responsibility. All I can do is expect those that should be to be responsible for their own choices.

Typical irresponsible Liberal mindset opposing personal responsibility. You say you don't oppose it but your belief that one person should be forced to fund the choices of another says otherwise.

"Adamant" is your word, not mine. You can't win an argument so you're reduced to making shit up. See how that works? I said I support fathers being responsible for their own. I also recognize that's not always the case and I don't believe kids should go hungry when the parents are not responsible. It's called compassion -- a gene not found in neanderthal conservatives.

You didn't mention anyone but taxpayers until I brought them up. If you actually believed what you said, you would have done it earlier.

Compassion doesn't come from thinking others should fund what you support. Compassion comes from a willful choice by the giver not a mandate by the taker and those that support the taking. In other words, since you support a mandate, you aren't compassionate or you would simply provide for those you think deserve it, do it privately, and keep the rest of us out of it.

Your derangement persists. Unbelievably, you actually believe I don't support something I don't mention here until it comes up in conversation. I haven't said where I stand on affirmative action. Guess you think that means I don't support it, huh?

I believe that you say you do yet your only mention of those who should pay was the taxpayers. You didn't bring them up and now we're supposed to believe you thought they should?

Affirmative action has nothing to do with this issue. Why would you mention it here? No one would expect you to do so. However, when a key player in what is the issue isn't mentioned, it leaves one believing it isn't important to you.

 

[Conservative65]

Percentage is irrelevant. Tax money still goes for abortions.

If people like you held women who have kids responsible for their choices, her having kids would cost us nothing. That's the issue.

Of course percent matters. Just how crazy are you? Virtually no abortions are paid for with tax dollars and the ones which are, are under extreme circumstances where in almost all cases, the women were either impregnated against their will or their life is in jeopardy.

99% of abortions are the choice of the woman. Those are not paid for with tax dollars.

You're so fucking deranged, you bitch about helping out women who were raped or whose life is in danger from their own pregnancy.

You're the best opponent for conservatism.

I don't care what her situation is. If she makes the choice, it's her responsibility to pay the price whether it be in 1% of the cases or 100% of the cases.

It's not called helping. Help involves a choice not a mandate. If you want to help her, do it with your money.

fucking dildo, women don't choose to be raped.

Women don't choose to for their pregnancies to threaten their lives.

Those are the abortions you're bitching about paying for.

You're even more deranged than I thought.

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

Again, helping someone involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You can believe that the government forcing you to do something means you helped but you would be wrong. They made you do it. It's the same as you thinking compassion comes from believing someone else should do it your way then going about having the government mandate it.

I don't have a problem helping where I, not you, deem I should help. But then, if you weren't a Liberal you might understand the difference.

 

[Conservative65]

You can't do shit but run your fucking mouth that someone needs to shut for you.

Aww, poor baby. Too bad you're powerless to do anything about it but bitch like a little girl. You certainly can't do it with your mindless drivel; like calling Georgia's claim of the anti-slavery states of the north as a reason for why they seceded, a lie -- even though that was Georgia's very own claim.

You think I'm powerless? Bad mistake.

I'm still speaking.

Yep, completely powerless.

That's because the opportunity hasn't occurred YET. It will change when it does.

It never will, ya deluded freak of nature.

That's not because of me but because you'll hide.

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one that thinks slavery was the reason for the war and can't understand why it wasn't.

Oh? why do you think the south seceded?

Same reason the colonists rebelled. Read the Declaration of Independence.

If that were the case, and it's not, ALL of the states would have separated from the federal government. You don't even know why we fought for independence from England.

All of the States didn't have an overbearing government sticking its nose in their business. While you don't see that, you likely don't see the federal government forcing someone to pay for a woman's choice the woman said was none of their business as being overbearing. You like big government and consider it normal. The southern states didn't and chose not to accept it. Read the Declaration. It says exactly why we fought for independence from England. It gives a list of reasons. The first part goes about saying that there comes a times when even certain things must no longer exist that way including the colonists no longer being part of England. The list just gives examples as to why the separation should occur.

The overbearing issue, which some states didn't take issue -- was slavery.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

So it's changed? Many of your indoctrinated ilk have said it was about nothing but slavery. You can't even keep up with what your handlers believe.

 

[Snouter]

Jesus the failed jewish messiah said in Mark 9:42-48 to cut off things that cause one to not join his cult. Eyes, limbs, and we can assume fetuses must go in order to follow the failure.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

The placenta is a temporary organ only present during pregnancy, not part of the woman or unborn's body.

Try again.

What part of the woman's body is no longer there when she has an abortion?

 

[Faun]

Many things go unmentioned until discussed. That doesn't mean I don't support them.

Regardless, the primary concern is the children once they are born.

Again, irregardless of how heartless you conservatives are, we don't let children in America go hungry.

By the way, no one is seeking your approval for that. Children will be fed even if it kills you.

If you so adamant about it, you would have mentioned it earlier on.

Irregardless? That's a double negative and a word that even dictionaries say is non standard and an incorrect usage of the word that should actually be use.

Heartless can't be an issue. I can't be heartless on something that isn't my responsibility. All I can do is expect those that should be to be responsible for their own choices.

Typical irresponsible Liberal mindset opposing personal responsibility. You say you don't oppose it but your belief that one person should be forced to fund the choices of another says otherwise.

"Adamant" is your word, not mine. You can't win an argument so you're reduced to making shit up. See how that works? I said I support fathers being responsible for their own. I also recognize that's not always the case and I don't believe kids should go hungry when the parents are not responsible. It's called compassion -- a gene not found in neanderthal conservatives.

You didn't mention anyone but taxpayers until I brought them up. If you actually believed what you said, you would have done it earlier.

Compassion doesn't come from thinking others should fund what you support. Compassion comes from a willful choice by the giver not a mandate by the taker and those that support the taking. In other words, since you support a mandate, you aren't compassionate or you would simply provide for those you think deserve it, do it privately, and keep the rest of us out of it.

Your derangement persists. Unbelievably, you actually believe I don't support something I don't mention here until it comes up in conversation. I haven't said where I stand on affirmative action. Guess you think that means I don't support it, huh?

I believe that you say you do yet your only mention of those who should pay was the taxpayers. You didn't bring them up and now we're supposed to believe you thought they should?

Affirmative action has nothing to do with this issue. Why would you mention it here? No one would expect you to do so. However, when a key player in what is the issue isn't mentioned, it leaves one believing it isn't important to you.

Affirmative action is relevant in the sense that like fathers' involvement with their kids, I didn't mention it. The reality is, you don't know where I stand on either, yet here you are, moronically speaking ad though you do.

 

[Faun]

Of course percent matters. Just how crazy are you? Virtually no abortions are paid for with tax dollars and the ones which are, are under extreme circumstances where in almost all cases, the women were either impregnated against their will or their life is in jeopardy.

99% of abortions are the choice of the woman. Those are not paid for with tax dollars.

You're so fucking deranged, you bitch about helping out women who were raped or whose life is in danger from their own pregnancy.

You're the best opponent for conservatism.

I don't care what her situation is. If she makes the choice, it's her responsibility to pay the price whether it be in 1% of the cases or 100% of the cases.

It's not called helping. Help involves a choice not a mandate. If you want to help her, do it with your money.

fucking dildo, women don't choose to be raped.

Women don't choose to for their pregnancies to threaten their lives.

Those are the abortions you're bitching about paying for.

You're even more deranged than I thought.

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

Again, helping someone involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You can believe that the government forcing you to do something means you helped but you would be wrong. They made you do it. It's the same as you thinking compassion comes from believing someone else should do it your way then going about having the government mandate it.

I don't have a problem helping where I, not you, deem I should help. But then, if you weren't a Liberal you might understand the difference.

If left to imbecile conservatives like you, children would starve. That's why we leave it up to the government.

 

[Faun]

Aww, poor baby. Too bad you're powerless to do anything about it but bitch like a little girl. You certainly can't do it with your mindless drivel; like calling Georgia's claim of the anti-slavery states of the north as a reason for why they seceded, a lie -- even though that was Georgia's very own claim.

You think I'm powerless? Bad mistake.

I'm still speaking.

Yep, completely powerless.

That's because the opportunity hasn't occurred YET. It will change when it does.

It never will, ya deluded freak of nature.

That's not because of me but because you'll hide.

You're powerless. Deal with reality.

 

[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.

The placenta is a temporary organ only present during pregnancy, not part of the woman or unborn's body.

Try again.

What part of the woman's body is no longer there when she has an abortion?

Like it matters to me that you don't like my answer. It matters not that it's temporary. The placenta is still physically attached to the woman and part of her body until she delivers, miscarries, or has an abortion.

And again, you can't force anyone to remain pregnant against their will.

 

[Conservative65]

You think I'm powerless? Bad mistake.

I'm still speaking.

Yep, completely powerless.

That's because the opportunity hasn't occurred YET. It will change when it does.

It never will, ya deluded freak of nature.

That's not because of me but because you'll hide.

You're powerless. Deal with reality.

When you hide like a little bitch, it's not about me but the one hiding. Afraid?

 

[Conservative65]

I don't care what her situation is. If she makes the choice, it's her responsibility to pay the price whether it be in 1% of the cases or 100% of the cases.

It's not called helping. Help involves a choice not a mandate. If you want to help her, do it with your money.

fucking dildo, women don't choose to be raped.

Women don't choose to for their pregnancies to threaten their lives.

Those are the abortions you're bitching about paying for.

You're even more deranged than I thought.

They choose to have an abortion. Nothing says an abortion is required. If you say one is required, then you've blown your entire argument because someone or some entity would have to require it and you accept that as OK.

Deranged is thinking that a choice even in those situations is the responsibility of the person that didn't make the choice.

True, women whose life is in jeopardy from her own pregnancy could choose suicide by not having an abortion, though that kills the fetus anyway. And women who are raped could choose to have their rapists' babies, only to be reminded of their rape every day and possibly have to fight for custody against their rapists.

But then, if you weren't against helping such people, you wouldn't be the heartless conservative you are.

Again, helping someone involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You can believe that the government forcing you to do something means you helped but you would be wrong. They made you do it. It's the same as you thinking compassion comes from believing someone else should do it your way then going about having the government mandate it.

I don't have a problem helping where I, not you, deem I should help. But then, if you weren't a Liberal you might understand the difference.

If left to imbecile conservatives like you, children would starve. That's why we leave it up to the government.

Since it's the parents responsibility to feed their own kids, Conservative aren't involved in that responsibility. If you bleeding hearts truly cared like you claim you care, the government wouldn't need to be involved. I hold no responsibility in the matter. If the children go without, it's the parent's fault since it is their responsibility. Since you think kids that aren't yours deserve it and they don't get it, it's your fault because you believe it is your responsibility. The sad part is you won't do a damn thing about it personally.

It's the same with any choice someone makes. If you buy a car that you can't afford to pay for, the rest of us aren't responsible for that. Same with a house, etc. You decide, you pay.

 

[Faun]

Oh? why do you think the south seceded?

Same reason the colonists rebelled. Read the Declaration of Independence.

If that were the case, and it's not, ALL of the states would have separated from the federal government. You don't even know why we fought for independence from England.

All of the States didn't have an overbearing government sticking its nose in their business. While you don't see that, you likely don't see the federal government forcing someone to pay for a woman's choice the woman said was none of their business as being overbearing. You like big government and consider it normal. The southern states didn't and chose not to accept it. Read the Declaration. It says exactly why we fought for independence from England. It gives a list of reasons. The first part goes about saying that there comes a times when even certain things must no longer exist that way including the colonists no longer being part of England. The list just gives examples as to why the separation should occur.

The overbearing issue, which some states didn't take issue -- was slavery.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

So it's changed? Many of your indoctrinated ilk have said it was about nothing but slavery. You can't even keep up with what your handlers believe.

That's because I don't have handlers. Glad you're capable of recognizing that. And again, as quoted above, slavery was the key issue leading to secession. The states themselves said it at the time; even if you are too stupid to understand it. And again, if slavery wasn't an issue, there would have been no secession and there would have been no civil war.

 

[Conservative65]

Same reason the colonists rebelled. Read the Declaration of Independence.

If that were the case, and it's not, ALL of the states would have separated from the federal government. You don't even know why we fought for independence from England.

All of the States didn't have an overbearing government sticking its nose in their business. While you don't see that, you likely don't see the federal government forcing someone to pay for a woman's choice the woman said was none of their business as being overbearing. You like big government and consider it normal. The southern states didn't and chose not to accept it. Read the Declaration. It says exactly why we fought for independence from England. It gives a list of reasons. The first part goes about saying that there comes a times when even certain things must no longer exist that way including the colonists no longer being part of England. The list just gives examples as to why the separation should occur.

The overbearing issue, which some states didn't take issue -- was slavery.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

So it's changed? Many of your indoctrinated ilk have said it was about nothing but slavery. You can't even keep up with what your handlers believe.

That's because I don't have handlers. Glad you're capable of recognizing that. And again, as quoted above, slavery was the key issue leading to secession. The states themselves said it at the time; even if you are too stupid to understand it. And again, if slavery wasn't an issue, there would have been no secession and there would have been no civil war.

Typical brainwashed Liberal. Your handlers have done a good job at it. They get you to do what they want you to do and make you believe it was really you deciding.

Again, Liberals have claimed slavery was the ONLY issue.

If slavery was the primary issue, the non confederate slave states would have left, too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

“Three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3.

What about it?

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

 

[Faun]

I'm still speaking.

Yep, completely powerless.

That's because the opportunity hasn't occurred YET. It will change when it does.

It never will, ya deluded freak of nature.

That's not because of me but because you'll hide.

You're powerless. Deal with reality.

When you hide like a little bitch, it's not about me but the one hiding. Afraid?

Hiding? I'm on the Internet, ya dumfuck. Same as you. I'm "hiding" like you're hiding. You can't stop me from speaking, yiu're powerless, ya fruit loop dingus.

Deal with reality.

If you can.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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

Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment.

“Three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3.

What about it?

It was an abomination that was ended. Same should be done to roe v wade.

An anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution was an abomination?

No, no, no. The clause was ended. It referred to the value of a person, 3/5. It was wrong. Come on Cecille.