The Christian Left?

[BS Filter]

And Christians wonder why their numbers have been steadily decreasing.

It's proof that biblical prophecy is true. We're getting closer to the end.

Nope.. The end was in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed. You should step back from the Scofield heresy and Hal Lindsey...and read your Bible at least from 200BC and Antiochus IV Epiphanes...

Where's the evidence that Pam Gellar is a hater?

Seriously??? Google it.

I know all about her. You tell me, what do you believe she says that's hate. Find some courage and tell us.

Read Geller's crap yourself. You're presumably an adult and a Christian

I know all about her. I agree with her 100%.

Well that's no surprise. You've always come across as a total idiot. You certainly live up to your name - posting nothing but pure BS. Filtering out truth, logic and common sense.

Coming from a deranged jackal like you, I take that as a compliment.

 

[irosie91]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

 

[initforme]

You can argue all you want. The key is to prevent conception. It's always a win win situation unless people want kids. Less conceptions is less abortions and less unwanted kids. So less conceptions is a win for the nation.

 

[initforme]

I will never understand people who are against contraception. That makes zero sense. On what basis is an opinion like this based?

 

[initforme]

Using birth control is not kling anything. That's not arguable.

 

[irosie91]

You can argue all you want. The key is to prevent conception. It's always a win win situation unless people want kids. Less conceptions is less abortions and less unwanted kids. So less conceptions is a win for the nation.

you can argue all you want------you have OBVIOUSLY never been involved in the CARE OF PEOPLE----ie ---the GENERAL POPULATION with all the social problems THEREOF-----you just sit in your comfy armchair----sipping brandy and-----FART

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

 

[irosie91]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

That ZYGOTE is human.

 

[irosie91]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

That ZYGOTE is human.

right---a human zygote------which is the fusion of a HUMAN ovum and a HUMAN spermatozoan. My left
thumbnail is a HUMAN THUMBNAIL

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

That ZYGOTE is human.

right---a human zygote------which is the fusion of a HUMAN ovum and a HUMAN spermatozoan. My left
thumbnail is a HUMAN THUMBNAIL

Your thumbnail isn't YOU. You're insane.

 

[Penelope]

Its so easy for a man to say. They don't have to breed and wonder who will take care of their child.

The term "welfare moms" come to mind.

 

[BS Filter]

Its so easy for a man to say. They don't have to breed and wonder who will take care of their child.

The term "welfare moms" come to mind.

So the zygote isn't human? What species is it?

 

[BS Filter]

Its so easy for a man to say. They don't have to breed and wonder who will take care of their child.

The term "welfare moms" come to mind.

Do you believe that there are women on welfare who have children simply to collect welfare?

 

[Dragonlady]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

Given studies have routinely shownnn that unwanted children have a long sad history of doing poorly in life - higher rates of criminality, high school drop outs, substance abuse, and being wards of the state, in addition to the studies showing economic outcomes for women unable to obtain abortions being much worse off economically, and emotionally five years later, one could reasonably make the case that the abortion is for the well-being of the child.

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

Given studies have routinely shownnn that unwanted children have a long sad history of doing poorly in life - higher rates of criminality, high school drop outs, substance abuse, and being wards of the state, in addition to the studies showing economic outcomes for women unable to obtain abortions being much worse off economically, and emotionally five years later, one could reasonably make the case that the abortion is for the well-being of the child.

You're insane.

 

[Dragonlady]

Its so easy for a man to say. They don't have to breed and wonder who will take care of their child.

The term "welfare moms" come to mind.

Do you believe that there are women on welfare who have children simply to collect welfare?

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too? Simple common sense and logic would tell you that the amount of money a woman gets for having another child while on welfare is not enough to pay for food and clothing for said child.

But you're so gullible, that you believe these fairy stories:

The Myth of the Welfare Queen

The right turned Linda Taylor into a bogeyman. But her real life was much more complicated.

newrepublic.com

The Ugly Myth of the Welfare Queen

Josh Levin’s The Queen examines how politicians and the media used Taylor's story to change public opinion around government aid and the poor.

www.thenation.com

The Truth Behind The Lies Of The Original 'Welfare Queen'

The story of the woman famously referred to as a "welfare queen" in Ronald Reagan's 1976 campaign is far more bizarre and unsettling than the stereotype she became the emblem for, as a stellar long read from Slate reveals.

www.npr.org

Every woman I know who has found herself on welfare with small children has fought to get herself off welfare so she could give her children a better life. I don't know any who haven't succeeded, and it was not easy for any of them to go back to school, learn a trade, while parenting their kids, dealing with their broke ass ex's, while counting every single penny.

 

[Dragonlady]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

Given studies have routinely shownnn that unwanted children have a long sad history of doing poorly in life - higher rates of criminality, high school drop outs, substance abuse, and being wards of the state, in addition to the studies showing economic outcomes for women unable to obtain abortions being much worse off economically, and emotionally five years later, one could reasonably make the case that the abortion is for the well-being of the child.

You're insane.

I'm the one who is retired by the lake, with an indexed to inflation pension, in one of the top retirement communities in Canada, after a highly successful business career in banking, finance and law. My country has flattened the virus yet again, and re-opening begins tomorrow.

You're the one living in a country where half the people are living in some fantasy land where Donald Trump and the Republican Party have created the greatest country in the world. No they haven't. They took the greatest country in the world, and tried to turn it into another right wing authoritarian hell-hole.

When Donald Trump was inaugurated, he talke about "American carnage", and the world said "WTF is he talking about?", but by the end of his regime, Trump had achieved his vision of America in flames.

 

[irosie91]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

That ZYGOTE is human.

right---a human zygote------which is the fusion of a HUMAN ovum and a HUMAN spermatozoan. My left
thumbnail is a HUMAN THUMBNAIL

Your thumbnail isn't YOU. You're insane.

the base of my thumbnail bears my DNA---full complement-----just as a zygote bears the full
complement of the ovum and spermatozoa combined

 

[BS Filter]

I believe in Separation of Church and State. As such I voted for Biden who knows the difference between civil law and theology laws and so does Reverend Warnock who is pro choice.

Do you support a mother's right to choose up to and including birth?

Having a baby is a decision between a woman and her doctor. If her doctor says an abortion is medically necessary, late in the pregnancy, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Women who have late term abortions are not doing so out of "choice" or "convenience".

Many women choose abortion to terminate their pregnancy without any medical danger. Do you support that?

I am a women. I do not LIKE abortion----but I do understand the social aspects of women who are in
a position of being unable to ----for practical reasons, to have a child. There are LOTS OF REASONS. Thus, I do support a woman's right to first trimester abortion. ------unless YOU want to support and nurture----THE CHILD.

If a woman doesn't have any moral integrity to take care of a life she is responsible for, then why should taxpayers? Yet, that's exactly what we do. Teach people that they're responsible for their actions. We're human beings, not animals.

did I say that the tax payers must support children that their parents either cannot or don't wish to? You touched on one of the reasons which leads ME to support first trimester abortion at the discretion of the mother (the one for whom a MYRIAD of reasons it might be impossible for her to adequately support or
care for the child)

Yes, you did. It's called welfare and Planned Abortionhood, both taxpayer funded.

"planned abortionhood" ? Welfare supports (to some extent) impoverished people. "planned parenthood" supports the education of women of child-bearing years and, to some extent, their medical
care. Are you suggesting that impoverished people just die in the gutter or neglect?

Abortion isn't "medical care".

how do you know? are you an advocate of the
wire hanger method?

Okay then, explain to us how killing a human being is "medical care". Go ahead.

sure. Pregnancy IS a medical issue. In some cases the mother's life is at risk. In fact, ---in the past, IN ALL cases the mother's life was at risk. NOW that is true only of some cases. In my very own case --MY LIFE was at risk due to pre-eclampsia which SHOULD have been treated a lot earlier than it was------even though I did have fair, but not ideal, pre-natal care.
ALSO pregnant women should be treated with supplemental FOLATE to avoid such outcomes as spinal bifida and cleft palate-----and also checked to specific fetus dangerous conditions such as TOXOPLASMOSIS, MEASLES ----etc etc etc. In some cases the fetus is SO ABNORMAL that a live birth thereof would be a tragedy for both mother and baby---and then there are the hereditary sicknesses that must be considered. There are also issues of YOUTH of the mother, coerced sex, inability of the mother to care for a child and extreme poverty

Killing a human being because of extreme poverty is now a medical condition? Amazing.

yes----for the well-being of both the mother and child.
If a mother has NO CAPACITY to care for a newborn---THAT IS AN ISSUE

You're insane.

by what criteria?

You just said killing the child is for the wellbeing of the child.

terminating a pregnancy is not "KILLING A CHILD" any more than using a condom is not "KILLING A FEW THOUSAND CHILDREN" or using birth control pills is
not "killing little baby ova"

You should have taken biology in high school. An egg and sperm aren't a human being. When they become one, that's a human being. You're not only insane, you're ignorant. I suppose you're one of those leftist propaganda parrots that preach to us to "follow the science", huh.

biology was my undergraduate major and I graduated CUM LAUDE When a sperm and an ovum unite----that is called----in the nomenclature of biology -----a ZYGOTE----not "a child".

That ZYGOTE is human.

right---a human zygote------which is the fusion of a HUMAN ovum and a HUMAN spermatozoan. My left
thumbnail is a HUMAN THUMBNAIL

Your thumbnail isn't YOU. You're insane.

the base of my thumbnail bears my DNA---full complement-----just as a zygote bears the full
complement of the ovum and spermatozoa combined

A zygote grows into a person. You're thumbnail doesn't. You're insane.