True women March for Life

[Conservative65]

They aren't separate issues. The latter couldn't happen unless she made the choice. That's why I said the RESULTS of that choice.

Don't move the goalposts. The issue is a woman controlling her own body. Your causality chain has nothing to do with that.

Those kids aren't my responsibility because they aren't mine. Why should I give a damn about them if the one having the pussy they came out of doesn't give enough of a damn to support her own?

Was that an "I hate welfare" rant, or an "I hate paying child support" rant? Not that either one has anything to do with a woman controlling her own body.

Was that a those of you that didn't produce the kids are more responsible for those kid's welfare than the one having the pussy they came out of rant? Sounds like it.

If the woman, in controlling her body, produces a child, the child is her responsibility not the responsibility of the choice that produced the result. Without her choice, the result doesn't occur. If she's not willing to do for her own, I don't give a shit about them.

 

[mamooth]

Was that a those of you that didn't produce the kids are more responsible for those kid's welfare than the one having the pussy they came out of rant? Sounds like it.

You're just going in misogynist-douche goalpost-moving circles now. That holds no interest for me. Bye.

 

[Conservative65]

Was that a those of you that didn't produce the kids are more responsible for those kid's welfare than the one having the pussy they came out of rant? Sounds like it.

You're just going in misogynist-douche goalpost-moving circles now. That holds no interest for me. Bye.

Run, bitch, run.

You're the one that said the result of a choice has nothing to do with the choice.

You hold no interest because your'e a stupid **** that can't think on any level but the low one in which your miserable life exists.

 

[playtime]

why is viagra covered then 'eh? why do i have to pay for that? how about insulin if i'm not a diabetic? it's called comprehensive care.

That you compare medical conditions with those of a choice invalidates your argument.

when a pregnant woman needs medical care for a healthy outcome at the end of gestation & b4 the ACA became law that was considered to be a pre existing condition... then yeppers... it is indeed a medical condition.

Contraception isn't for medical care. You compared viagra and insulin, both actually used for medical conditions, with contraception, something that isn't. You lose.

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.

It should be over the counter....but of coarse it won't be because the republicans have hi-jacked the christian's lying telling them they are the only party with God in the center... ( excluding ones who see right through it )

Contraception is over the counter.

Sure for the guy to use...

Who do you think the woman is having sex with that could get her pregnant? If she is going to spread her legs, shouldn't she make sure he wears it or keep them closed?

What the rubber...lol.....what if a man is abusing his wife and she doesn't want children...so many scenarios

And yes, contraception is for many medical conditions

So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

 

[Lakhota]

True women march for their rights!

 

[Eaglewings]

Jesus fought for the poor . The right ..... tells the poor to go to hell .

There is only one account of Jesus even coming close to fighting in the scriptures. And he wasn't flipping over the tables of the money changers on behalf of the poor.

When was the last time you read the the bible about Jesus's life?

And you're outright wrong about the right not caring about the poor. It's specifically our love for the poor that has us fighting the government keeping them down.

Jesus fought for the underdog, he was angry with the men making money off of the poor, and taking taxes..making stupid laws and acting like kings...Sound familiar?

Again, where did he fight at all? Where was he angry with men making money off the poor? (How do you make money off the poor anyway, that makes no sense). Where did he object to taking taxes? He called a tax collector to be his apostle. Who did he object to acting as a king? Certainly wasn't Caesar

Fight...meaning , like you fight for what is important to you...not the actual fight..

Luke 19:1-10New International Version (NIV)
Zacchaeus the Tax Collector
19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamoretree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord,“Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything,I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham; For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Great passage but no fighting involved at all. Nor anything you said

Try posting a quote...

 

[Conservative65]

That you compare medical conditions with those of a choice invalidates your argument.

when a pregnant woman needs medical care for a healthy outcome at the end of gestation & b4 the ACA became law that was considered to be a pre existing condition... then yeppers... it is indeed a medical condition.

Contraception isn't for medical care. You compared viagra and insulin, both actually used for medical conditions, with contraception, something that isn't. You lose.

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.

Contraception is over the counter.

Sure for the guy to use...

Who do you think the woman is having sex with that could get her pregnant? If she is going to spread her legs, shouldn't she make sure he wears it or keep them closed?

What the rubber...lol.....what if a man is abusing his wife and she doesn't want children...so many scenarios

And yes, contraception is for many medical conditions

So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

 

[yiostheoy]

The beauty of a woman is having children and seeing that their welfare is ensured. They are the voice for true victims of our society. Thank you Ladies! UNBORN LIVES MATTER!

The anti abortion march is on the news today. VP Pence is there as well. I guess this is held every year on the anniversary of Roe.

Roe is bad law. The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of the States' making their own laws on this.

But instead they applied the right to privacy in papers and documents to a woman's womb. Absolutely ridiculous.

States' Rights were violated.

 

[yiostheoy]

They aren't separate issues. The latter couldn't happen unless she made the choice. That's why I said the RESULTS of that choice.

Don't move the goalposts. The issue is a woman controlling her own body. Your causality chain has nothing to do with that.

Those kids aren't my responsibility because they aren't mine. Why should I give a damn about them if the one having the pussy they came out of doesn't give enough of a damn to support her own?

Was that an "I hate welfare" rant, or an "I hate paying child support" rant? Not that either one has anything to do with a woman controlling her own body.

Was that a those of you that didn't produce the kids are more responsible for those kid's welfare than the one having the pussy they came out of rant? Sounds like it.

If the woman, in controlling her body, produces a child, the child is her responsibility not the responsibility of the choice that produced the result. Without her choice, the result doesn't occur. If she's not willing to do for her own, I don't give a shit about them.

The choice is not so much the issue in Roe.

The issue is the States' rights to pass legislation allowing abortion or not within their boundaries.

 

[pillars]

There has to be something really wrong with someone advocating the murder of the most innocent of all.

The women's march did not advocate the murder of babies. That's just a stupid lie.

 

[pillars]

The anti abortion march is on the news today. VP Pence is there as well. I guess this is held every year on the anniversary of Roe.

Roe is bad law. The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of the States' making their own laws on this.

But instead they applied the right to privacy in papers and documents to a woman's womb. Absolutely ridiculous.

States' Rights were violated.

So our papers should be more private than our genitals?

That's a bizarre assessment.

Only a man could believe something so absurd.

 

[yiostheoy]

<pfffft> what a bunch of hypocrites...

What part of all lives matter is difficult to understand?

when there can only be one choice, the one that is post born with a life history already established gets that choice.

& when an unwanted pregnancy is brought to term - where are the crowds of anti abortion protesters when the congressional powers that vote to slash funding for medical, housing, clothing, & education for all those 'welfare queens' pushing out their brats?

yaaaaaaa.................... like i said................. hypocrites.

See you,keep Pro choice as one issue and move pro life to several. Interesting.

you think so? wrong. there is always several layers to either side of the issue. however it does boil down to one final issue. who gets to decide what to do with their own uterus.

The decision comes down to one person, never said otherwise, if you want to take a life, it's on you. But it is alive human being, science will tell you that.

It is a living embryo.

But so is a tapeworm.

The issue is not the killing of the embryo.

The issue is the States' rights to legislate on laws within their own boundaries.

The Fed's should never have gotten involved. This is what every Federal judge should have ruled. It is a state issue.

 

[yiostheoy]

The anti abortion march is on the news today. VP Pence is there as well. I guess this is held every year on the anniversary of Roe.

Roe is bad law. The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of the States' making their own laws on this.

But instead they applied the right to privacy in papers and documents to a woman's womb. Absolutely ridiculous.

States' Rights were violated.

So our papers should be more private than our genitals?

That's a bizarre assessment.

Only a man could believe something so absurd.

I can assure you that the Founding Freemasons were not thinking about (1) women or (2) slaves or (3) Indians when they wrote the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about women.

 

[yiostheoy]

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

And Cialis is to have pleasure...not a medical condition...

It was developed to help with erectile dysfunction. Are you saying that isn't a medical condition?

Causes are usually medical but can also be psychological. ( like when a woman can psychologically stop.herself from getting pregnant when raped..lol

These congressmen make anything and everything to their advantage when it comes to sex..


.

When you've lost, you back off your argument. That's called trying to justify a lost cause.

Again, when you compare criminal activity to a choice, you lose.

No I stand by the fact that the old men in congress make it easy on themselves so they can go have their hooker or other woman after a full day of voting against a woman.

Now where were we? I am on another thread too...

I CONFESS

That's not a fact.

I don't think you know what a fact is.

 

[Conservative65]

There has to be something really wrong with someone advocating the murder of the most innocent of all.

The women's march did not advocate the murder of babies. That's just a stupid lie.

It advocated abortion. No difference.

 

[playtime]

when a pregnant woman needs medical care for a healthy outcome at the end of gestation & b4 the ACA became law that was considered to be a pre existing condition... then yeppers... it is indeed a medical condition.

Contraception isn't for medical care. You compared viagra and insulin, both actually used for medical conditions, with contraception, something that isn't. You lose.

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.

Sure for the guy to use...

Who do you think the woman is having sex with that could get her pregnant? If she is going to spread her legs, shouldn't she make sure he wears it or keep them closed?

What the rubber...lol.....what if a man is abusing his wife and she doesn't want children...so many scenarios

And yes, contraception is for many medical conditions

So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

did i say anything about 'free' contraception? low cost or 'no' cost is how insurance companies work with group insurance.coverage & that's what comprehensive care is. that's what keeps premium costs down for everybody. but it is never truly 'free'. even with medicaid coverage.... i bet you call yourself a 'conservative'. real conservatives see the benefit of up front low cost remedies now to prevent high cost outcomes in the end; whether it is for reproduction control or cancer screenings.

you are ridiculous living in a vacuum with this issue. they are all tied together & no matter how you think i am arguing - it matters not because you are using faulty logic from the get go.

 

[Conservative65]

Contraception isn't for medical care. You compared viagra and insulin, both actually used for medical conditions, with contraception, something that isn't. You lose.

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.

Who do you think the woman is having sex with that could get her pregnant? If she is going to spread her legs, shouldn't she make sure he wears it or keep them closed?

What the rubber...lol.....what if a man is abusing his wife and she doesn't want children...so many scenarios

And yes, contraception is for many medical conditions

So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

did i say anything about 'free' contraception? low cost or 'no' cost is how insurance companies work with group insurance.coverage & that's what comprehensive care is. that's what keeps premium costs down for everybody. but it is never truly 'free'. even with medicaid coverage.... i bet you call yourself a 'conservative'. real conservatives see the benefit of up front low cost remedies now to prevent high cost outcomes in the end; whether it is for reproduction control or cancer screenings.

you are ridiculous living in a vacuum with this issue. they are all tied together & no matter how you think i am arguing - it matters not because you are using faulty logic from the get go.

You've argue that what a woman does with her body is her choice yet when that choice produces a result the woman can't or doesn't want to pay for, you support the government mandating it. If the government mandates that insurance companies include it, there's no difference between that and the government instituting a tax to fund it. Either way, those demanding that the choice be theirs alone expect others to fund it for them.

Same with women having kids they can't afford to support. They proclaim that what I do with my body is my choice and others should butt out. That is, until many of them make a choice that produces a child they can't financially support. Suddenly, they expect the government they told to stay out of their uterus to force the people they told to butt out to be a part of her choice. Not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, etc. to someone else's kids. It's simple to explain. If I didn't get the pussy it came out of, it's not my responsibility to support it.

 

[playtime]

educate yourself:

8 Other Reasons Women Take Birth Control Pills (Besides Preventing Pregnancy)

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.

What the rubber...lol.....what if a man is abusing his wife and she doesn't want children...so many scenarios

And yes, contraception is for many medical conditions

So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

did i say anything about 'free' contraception? low cost or 'no' cost is how insurance companies work with group insurance.coverage & that's what comprehensive care is. that's what keeps premium costs down for everybody. but it is never truly 'free'. even with medicaid coverage.... i bet you call yourself a 'conservative'. real conservatives see the benefit of up front low cost remedies now to prevent high cost outcomes in the end; whether it is for reproduction control or cancer screenings.

you are ridiculous living in a vacuum with this issue. they are all tied together & no matter how you think i am arguing - it matters not because you are using faulty logic from the get go.

You've argue that what a woman does with her body is her choice yet when that choice produces a result the woman can't or doesn't want to pay for, you support the government mandating it. If the government mandates that insurance companies include it, there's no difference between that and the government instituting a tax to fund it. Either way, those demanding that the choice be theirs alone expect others to fund it for them.

Same with women having kids they can't afford to support. They proclaim that what I do with my body is my choice and others should butt out. That is, until many of them make a choice that produces a child they can't financially support. Suddenly, they expect the government they told to stay out of their uterus to force the people they told to butt out to be a part of her choice. Not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, etc. to someone else's kids. It's simple to explain. If I didn't get the pussy it came out of, it's not my responsibility to support it.

 

[Eaglewings]

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.
So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

did i say anything about 'free' contraception? low cost or 'no' cost is how insurance companies work with group insurance.coverage & that's what comprehensive care is. that's what keeps premium costs down for everybody. but it is never truly 'free'. even with medicaid coverage.... i bet you call yourself a 'conservative'. real conservatives see the benefit of up front low cost remedies now to prevent high cost outcomes in the end; whether it is for reproduction control or cancer screenings.

you are ridiculous living in a vacuum with this issue. they are all tied together & no matter how you think i am arguing - it matters not because you are using faulty logic from the get go.

You've argue that what a woman does with her body is her choice yet when that choice produces a result the woman can't or doesn't want to pay for, you support the government mandating it. If the government mandates that insurance companies include it, there's no difference between that and the government instituting a tax to fund it. Either way, those demanding that the choice be theirs alone expect others to fund it for them.

Same with women having kids they can't afford to support. They proclaim that what I do with my body is my choice and others should butt out. That is, until many of them make a choice that produces a child they can't financially support. Suddenly, they expect the government they told to stay out of their uterus to force the people they told to butt out to be a part of her choice. Not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, etc. to someone else's kids. It's simple to explain. If I didn't get the pussy it came out of, it's not my responsibility to support it.

Wow that picture say's it all....

 

[Conservative65]

I'm aware of those but none of them fall under the argument you posed about using it for prevention. Prevention was your argument. When you lost, you try to bring things in that weren't a part of your argument. You keep losing and don't know when to quit trying.
So you're comparing criminal activity to a choice? Invalid argument

Contraception may be but the argument being put forth about it being OK to mandate someone else pay for it for a woman centered around contraception only.

oh bullshit. it's ALL relative dummy. there is NO single issue here when it comes to reproductive rights.

dummy.

Contraception was what was being argued.

Someone's reproductive rights doesn't mean another person should be forced to fund it.

did i say anything about 'free' contraception? low cost or 'no' cost is how insurance companies work with group insurance.coverage & that's what comprehensive care is. that's what keeps premium costs down for everybody. but it is never truly 'free'. even with medicaid coverage.... i bet you call yourself a 'conservative'. real conservatives see the benefit of up front low cost remedies now to prevent high cost outcomes in the end; whether it is for reproduction control or cancer screenings.

you are ridiculous living in a vacuum with this issue. they are all tied together & no matter how you think i am arguing - it matters not because you are using faulty logic from the get go.

You've argue that what a woman does with her body is her choice yet when that choice produces a result the woman can't or doesn't want to pay for, you support the government mandating it. If the government mandates that insurance companies include it, there's no difference between that and the government instituting a tax to fund it. Either way, those demanding that the choice be theirs alone expect others to fund it for them.

Same with women having kids they can't afford to support. They proclaim that what I do with my body is my choice and others should butt out. That is, until many of them make a choice that produces a child they can't financially support. Suddenly, they expect the government they told to stay out of their uterus to force the people they told to butt out to be a part of her choice. Not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, etc. to someone else's kids. It's simple to explain. If I didn't get the pussy it came out of, it's not my responsibility to support it.

To you lefties, what a woman does with her body is her choice until she can't afford the choice. That's when all those who say butt out want those they told to butt out to fund it.

The left picture left out the part where the woman is telling those people to butt out. The right one left out the part about the woman demanding help for a choice SHE made.