Netherlands launches fundraiser after President Donald Trump cuts abortion support

[Papageorgio]

for those who "prefer not to give birth", maybe their baby would prefer not to be slaughtered. That's a very selfish reason to murder a baby.

One can take the other extreme and say it's very selfish of you to judge others and impose your will on them.
From a legal perspective, it's not murder, and the unborn fetus/embryo knows nothing of its termination.

If you really cared about unfortunate babies, you should focus your concerns on those that are born.
"The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report shows - NBC News

I'm not imposing my will am I , as far as I know abortion is still legal. I have a right to my opinion don't I? I'm not sure how I can save all the newborn babies that die? I give to St.Jude and other charities, tell me how I can save them all, and I'll try real hard. Should all of those babies have been aborted?

I find it amusing that when those on the right have an opinion you are"imposing" your will.

My wife and I support also support St. Jude, good group. My wife and I don't believe in abortion however if someone chooses to be irresponsible and get pregnant, what they decide is between them and their God. I am not sure why people want me to pay for their choices, I thought what others do in the bedroom was no one else's business, it seems that others want it both ways.

 

[Conservative65]

We're 20 trillion dollars in debt. Do you really think we should be funding any foreign charities?

Suggest you should write a check if you feel strongly about it.

That's now how lefties work. They claim to support all sorts of causes but go about funding them by forcing others to pay for it. What's worse is they consider that charity and take credit for it as if the money did come out of their pockets voluntarily. More than one has said since they don't oppose taxes paying for certain things, it means the same thing. I've asked but have yet to get a response to the question of if it's such a good idea, why do you wait to be told to fund it?

You've encapsulated what I believe to be the only future that will ensure the survival of our great experiment in individual freedom and limited government. We must ask of any proposal, "Does you idea require mandatory enforcement by armed government agents?" If the answer is yes, keep working on it.

If paying taxes is the same as charity, should't everyone that pays taxes this year get a tax deduction next year for a charitable donation?

The taxation of labor is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society. Repeal the 16th amendment and we'll still have plenty of revenue to run a federal government that operates within the confines of its enumerated powers. Besides, didn't we outlaw the idea of forcing some men to labor on behalf of others? That's the effective result of our tax on labor.

Until then, I say YES to your idea. Income tax damn well should be a charitable write off.

Wonder if such a notion has ever been tried in the courts???

It's something that keeps popping back up when those of a certain ideology equate supporting taxation as being the same as charity. Their mindset is that if they don't oppose paying taxes to fund social welfare programs that it's the same as if they voluntarily paid that amount of money on their own.

 

[Conservative65]

for those who "prefer not to give birth", maybe their baby would prefer not to be slaughtered. That's a very selfish reason to murder a baby.

One can take the other extreme and say it's very selfish of you to judge others and impose your will on them.
From a legal perspective, it's not murder, and the unborn fetus/embryo knows nothing of its termination.

If you really cared about unfortunate babies, you should focus your concerns on those that are born.
"The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report shows - NBC News

I'm not imposing my will am I , as far as I know abortion is still legal. I have a right to my opinion don't I? I'm not sure how I can save all the newborn babies that die? I give to St.Jude and other charities, tell me how I can save them all, and I'll try real hard. Should all of those babies have been aborted?

I find it amusing that when those on the right have an opinion you are"imposing" your will.

My wife and I support also support St. Jude, good group. My wife and I don't believe in abortion however if someone chooses to be irresponsible and get pregnant, what they decide is between them and their God. I am not sure why people want me to pay for their choices, I thought what others do in the bedroom was no one else's business, it seems that others want it both ways.

That's exactly how the other side wants it. They scream and yell about what a woman does with her body is her choice yet have no problem getting the government they want to stay out of the choice to force individuals they want to stay out of the choice to pay for the results when the one making it can't do so.

I've asked and asked and finally got one of them on the other side to answer "no" to a question that proved their hypocrisy. This idiot was one of those that felt taxpayer funded contraception was a good idea and argued that it would reduce abortions and save money in the long run. I asked that if contraception was provided but the woman still got pregnant deciding to have the kid, should those of us forced to fund it for her be exempt from now supporting the result of her choice to have sex and have a child. This hypocrite said "no" that taxpayers funds should still be required to do so.

 

[Papageorgio]

for those who "prefer not to give birth", maybe their baby would prefer not to be slaughtered. That's a very selfish reason to murder a baby.

One can take the other extreme and say it's very selfish of you to judge others and impose your will on them.
From a legal perspective, it's not murder, and the unborn fetus/embryo knows nothing of its termination.

If you really cared about unfortunate babies, you should focus your concerns on those that are born.
"The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report shows - NBC News

I'm not imposing my will am I , as far as I know abortion is still legal. I have a right to my opinion don't I? I'm not sure how I can save all the newborn babies that die? I give to St.Jude and other charities, tell me how I can save them all, and I'll try real hard. Should all of those babies have been aborted?

I find it amusing that when those on the right have an opinion you are"imposing" your will.

My wife and I support also support St. Jude, good group. My wife and I don't believe in abortion however if someone chooses to be irresponsible and get pregnant, what they decide is between them and their God. I am not sure why people want me to pay for their choices, I thought what others do in the bedroom was no one else's business, it seems that others want it both ways.

That's exactly how the other side wants it. They scream and yell about what a woman does with her body is her choice yet have no problem getting the government they want to stay out of the choice to force individuals they want to stay out of the choice to pay for the results when the one making it can't do so.

I've asked and asked and finally got one of them on the other side to answer "no" to a question that proved their hypocrisy. This idiot was one of those that felt taxpayer funded contraception was a good idea and argued that it would reduce abortions and save money in the long run. I asked that if contraception was provided but the woman still got pregnant deciding to have the kid, should those of us forced to fund it for her be exempt from now supporting the result of her choice to have sex and have a child. This hypocrite said "no" that taxpayers funds should still be required to do so.

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

You have left wing mayors that want to control what you drink and the amount you drink. They want to control your health insurance and whether you should buy it or not. They want to control your education choices, no vouchers for you! They want to control your money, they want more on food stamps, more on housing, more on disability, more on unemployment, the more on the welfare system the easier for them to control your lives.

The want government not only in our homes but also in our bedrooms. Pretty easy to see.

 

[Conservative65]

for those who "prefer not to give birth", maybe their baby would prefer not to be slaughtered. That's a very selfish reason to murder a baby.

One can take the other extreme and say it's very selfish of you to judge others and impose your will on them.
From a legal perspective, it's not murder, and the unborn fetus/embryo knows nothing of its termination.

If you really cared about unfortunate babies, you should focus your concerns on those that are born.
"The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report shows - NBC News

I'm not imposing my will am I , as far as I know abortion is still legal. I have a right to my opinion don't I? I'm not sure how I can save all the newborn babies that die? I give to St.Jude and other charities, tell me how I can save them all, and I'll try real hard. Should all of those babies have been aborted?

I find it amusing that when those on the right have an opinion you are"imposing" your will.

My wife and I support also support St. Jude, good group. My wife and I don't believe in abortion however if someone chooses to be irresponsible and get pregnant, what they decide is between them and their God. I am not sure why people want me to pay for their choices, I thought what others do in the bedroom was no one else's business, it seems that others want it both ways.

That's exactly how the other side wants it. They scream and yell about what a woman does with her body is her choice yet have no problem getting the government they want to stay out of the choice to force individuals they want to stay out of the choice to pay for the results when the one making it can't do so.

I've asked and asked and finally got one of them on the other side to answer "no" to a question that proved their hypocrisy. This idiot was one of those that felt taxpayer funded contraception was a good idea and argued that it would reduce abortions and save money in the long run. I asked that if contraception was provided but the woman still got pregnant deciding to have the kid, should those of us forced to fund it for her be exempt from now supporting the result of her choice to have sex and have a child. This hypocrite said "no" that taxpayers funds should still be required to do so.

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

You have left wing mayors that want to control what you drink and the amount you drink. They want to control your health insurance and whether you should buy it or not. They want to control your education choices, no vouchers for you! They want to control your money, they want more on food stamps, more on housing, more on disability, more on unemployment, the more on the welfare system the easier for them to control your lives.

The want government not only in our homes but also in our bedrooms. Pretty easy to see.

They want all the choices and none of the personal responsibility. They claim to be pro -CHOICE but suggest offering a choice on an issue they oppose (vouchers) and see how quickly they oppose the concept of choice. That's why I can them pro abortion. If they choice they support being made centers around abortion, they're pro abortion.

The U.S. could take every penny of income and wealth in the country, divide it equally, and it less than 10 years, the freeloaders supporters would be screaming about the income and wealth inequality that exists.

 

[Chuz Life]

Its not a baby until after its born.
You conservatives don't give a shit after that fetus is actually born.

If it's not a baby until after it is born. . . How do you explain fetal HOMICIDE laws which make it a double murder to kill a pregnant woman?

That Federal law only applies when the pregnant woman intends to give birth.
Otherwise, it's not "murder" until after the fetus is born.

You are wrong about that.
The laws apply for anytime a "child in the womb" is killed in a criminal act.
If a woman is on her way into a Planned Murderhood clinic with the INTENT of killing her prenatal child. . . you would still be charged with MURDER if you shot her or assaulted her in some other way to cause the death of that child. . . EVEN IF the mother herself survived.

Why the emotional misinformation crap like "Planned Murderhood"?

Just calling it like I see it.

Get a grip & learn the facts!

The facts are on my side. Not yours.

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

 

[PK1]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

 

[Papageorgio]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

 

[PK1]

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

Is your scenario what the pregnant woman intended? The answer is NO!
Under the Federal law, a woman who wants to abort her pregnancy does not commit murder.
It's the woman's choice, and that's the libertarian position i advocate.

 

[PK1]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

Is that the best you can do? LOL!
.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

Is your scenario what the pregnant woman intended? The answer is NO!
Under the Federal law, a woman who wants to abort her pregnancy does not commit murder.
It's the woman's choice, and that's the libertarian position i advocate.

You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.

The subject was (and is) the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act. . . . even if the pregnant woman was on her way to get an abortion.

You can twist and squirm and protest all you want. The facts on this are not going to change.

 

[PK1]

The U.S. could take every penny of income and wealth in the country, divide it equally, and it less than 10 years, the freeloaders supporters would be screaming about the income and wealth inequality that exists.

Seems like all you care about is your money. Reminds me of that character Scrooge who initially was so greedy that he did not see or care about the misery around him.

 

[Papageorgio]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

Is that the best you can do? LOL!
.

For you, yes, it is all you deserve. I don't believe in abortion, I don't impose my will on anyone, it is my opinion and mine alone. You are a hypocrite, that is the way it is. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.

 

[PK1]

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

Is your scenario what the pregnant woman intended? The answer is NO!
Under the Federal law, a woman who wants to abort her pregnancy does not commit murder.
It's the woman's choice, and that's the libertarian position i advocate.

You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.
The subject was (and is) the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act. . . . even if the pregnant woman was on her way to get an abortion.

Why don't you stay on topic; this thread is about abortion by choice, not murder by a non-pregnant person.

 

[PK1]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

Is that the best you can do? LOL!

For you, yes, it is all you deserve. I don't believe in abortion, I don't impose my will on anyone, it is my opinion and mine alone. You are a hypocrite, that is the way it is. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.

I'm glad you don't impose your will on others, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as am i.
I have demonstrated how you are a hypocrite.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

Is your scenario what the pregnant woman intended? The answer is NO!
Under the Federal law, a woman who wants to abort her pregnancy does not commit murder.
It's the woman's choice, and that's the libertarian position i advocate.

You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.
The subject was (and is) the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act. . . . even if the pregnant woman was on her way to get an abortion.

Why don't you stay on topic; this thread is about abortion by choice, not murder by a non-pregnant person.

Hey daisy snowflake, I am simply correcting you on your own misinformation.

I refer everyone back to your post# 52.

 

[Papageorgio]

They want it both ways, they want government out of the bedroom, unless it is to buy them contraception or get an abortion, then the government needs to step in and be big daddy.

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

Is that the best you can do? LOL!

For you, yes, it is all you deserve. I don't believe in abortion, I don't impose my will on anyone, it is my opinion and mine alone. You are a hypocrite, that is the way it is. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.

I'm glad you don't impose your will on others, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as am i.
I have demonstrated how you are a hypocrite.

I prefer personal responsibility. I don't want government in my bedroom, nor do I want or expect them to pay for my children, nothing hypocritical there.

 

[Roudy]

Good


The Netherlands has launched an online fundraiser to compensate for US President Donald Trump's decision to cut funding to foreign charities that support abortion.

The foreign ministry announced it would kick-start the new site, shedecides.eu, with a donation of 10 million euros (A$14.17 million).

Mr Trump's decree to ban funding for abortions, signed on Monday, was one of the first acts of his presidency.

The day after that decision the Netherlands called for an international fund to support health centres offering abortion services in developing countries.

On its new website the Dutch foreign ministry said it had received "thousands of messages from over 150 countries in 23 languages".

The vast majority of the responses have been positive, "with many indicating a desire to donate to a fund," the statement added.


Netherlands launches fundraiser after President Donald Trump cuts abortion support

Cause Dutch women getting their abortions after they get raped by gangs of Neanderthals supersedes national security.

Gang rape 'live-streamed on Facebook'

Media Won't Report On Muslim Gang Rapes Happening Across Europe ⋆ US Herald

 

[PK1]

This is text straight from the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Is killing a prenatal child with a gunshot, knife to the mother's stomach or a boot to her gut considered (by law) to be a legal abortion practice? Yes or no?

Is your scenario what the pregnant woman intended? The answer is NO!
Under the Federal law, a woman who wants to abort her pregnancy does not commit murder.
It's the woman's choice, and that's the libertarian position i advocate.

You are moving the goal posts AGAIN.
The subject was (and is) the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act. . . . even if the pregnant woman was on her way to get an abortion.

Why don't you stay on topic; this thread is about abortion by choice, not murder by a non-pregnant person.

Hey daisy snowflake, I am simply correcting you on your own misinformation.
I refer everyone back to your post# 52.

Not misinformation. Abortion by woman's choice is not murder. Yes, "murder" would apply if the fetus was killed by a 3rd party AND the pregnant woman intended to give birth.
However, this thread started with abortion, not fetal murder. Keep up.

 

[PK1]

Do you prefer the opposite, i.e., government in your bedroom, then ignore the poor unwanted kids growing up violent and stealing guns to use on your family?
And then you want to pay more taxes to hire more police and build more prisons?
I smell hypocrisy.

It is coming from you.

Is that the best you can do? LOL!

For you, yes, it is all you deserve. I don't believe in abortion, I don't impose my will on anyone, it is my opinion and mine alone. You are a hypocrite, that is the way it is. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.

I'm glad you don't impose your will on others, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as am i.
I have demonstrated how you are a hypocrite.

I prefer personal responsibility. I don't want government in my bedroom, nor do I want or expect them to pay for my children, nothing hypocritical there.

I agree with what you said in your last post to me.
However, i am aware that many unfortunate kids are born without decent opportunities for healthy growth, and i am not blind to that reality.