why do conservatives care about other peoples abortions?

[Flash]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

These Moon Bats always want somebody else to pay for their stuff.

They are too sorry to provide for their own well being. That is just too much for them to have to bear.

 

[Conservative65]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

These Moon Bats always want somebody else to pay for their stuff.

They are too sorry to provide for their own well being. That is just too much for them to have to bear.

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

huh?????????????? more [email protected]

Actually, some aren't allowed to grow up - there is a country where a mad man shot and killed a classroom of 5 and 6 year old children. Hard to believe, nothing has been done to prevent another such horrific even though a terrorist organization has decided arming teachers and administrators and taking away the rights of those with mental health issues is the answer.

If you think any law will prevent another misuse of firearms, you're an idiot. I had a gun stolen from my car last year. It was in the glove box under state law, making me think it wasn't the target but a bonus for the thief, the doors were locked, and laws say the person that broke the window getting in can't do that yet it still happened.

I don't believe laws prevent crimes, a law makes an act criminal and provides a punishment. Thus I support requiring any person who wishes to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control a license. And any person who sells a gun to an unlicensed person to be punished by a loss of said license and the surrender of any weapons they own or possess to a licensed gun dealer sans compensation.

so what do you believe does prevent crimes. BTW, the laws aren't made to prevent, they are meant to deter and make people aware that there are consequences. Not to prevent. No where will you find that in any explanation. Deterrence has always been the rationale. It's amazing how many humans don't care about the consequences until after the fact. Oh wait, i didn't mean to that, can I have a mulligan, do-over, oops. Abortion has consequences. Seems the left don't like the consequences and want the opposing view to just shut up and go away. Interesting on how the majorityof the left can't debat any subject matter without getting into a hateful spite.

If someone is deterred from doing a crime because of the punishment the law places on that crime, it prevented the crime.

Thus a law abiding citizen who resides in a State wherein a license is required to drive a car and to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun will comply with the law to avoid punishment and because law abiding citizens obey the law.

And, a law abiding citizen in a State which require a license to own, possess, etc. a gun would never sell a gun to an unlicensed person, again because they are law abiding and they want to avoid punishment.

It's really that simple. The concept does not make law abiding citizens criminals as some have suggested, it simply makes it more difficult for someone who should never own, possess, etc. a gun from getting a gun.

Is it a panacea and will it end all violent murders of innocents? Of course not. But neither do speed limits or other rules of the road prevent death, and neither does ownership of a gun protect gun owners from rape, robbery or the suicide of a loved one.

 

[Conservative65]

Actually, some aren't allowed to grow up - there is a country where a mad man shot and killed a classroom of 5 and 6 year old children. Hard to believe, nothing has been done to prevent another such horrific even though a terrorist organization has decided arming teachers and administrators and taking away the rights of those with mental health issues is the answer.

If you think any law will prevent another misuse of firearms, you're an idiot. I had a gun stolen from my car last year. It was in the glove box under state law, making me think it wasn't the target but a bonus for the thief, the doors were locked, and laws say the person that broke the window getting in can't do that yet it still happened.

I don't believe laws prevent crimes, a law makes an act criminal and provides a punishment. Thus I support requiring any person who wishes to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control a license. And any person who sells a gun to an unlicensed person to be punished by a loss of said license and the surrender of any weapons they own or possess to a licensed gun dealer sans compensation.

so what do you believe does prevent crimes. BTW, the laws aren't made to prevent, they are meant to deter and make people aware that there are consequences. Not to prevent. No where will you find that in any explanation. Deterrence has always been the rationale. It's amazing how many humans don't care about the consequences until after the fact. Oh wait, i didn't mean to that, can I have a mulligan, do-over, oops. Abortion has consequences. Seems the left don't like the consequences and want the opposing view to just shut up and go away. Interesting on how the majorityof the left can't debat any subject matter without getting into a hateful spite.

If someone is deterred from doing a crime because of the punishment the law places on that crime, it prevented the crime.

Thus a law abiding citizen who resides in a State wherein a license is required to drive a car and to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun will comply with the law to avoid punishment and because law abiding citizens obey the law.

And, a law abiding citizen in a State which require a license to own, possess, etc. a gun would never sell a gun to an unlicensed person, again because they are law abiding and they want to avoid punishment.

It's really that simple. The concept does not make law abiding citizens criminals as some have suggested, it simply makes it more difficult for someone who should never own, possess, etc. a gun from getting a gun.

Is it a panacea and will it end all violent murders of innocents? Of course not. But neither do speed limits or other rules of the road prevent death, and neither does ownership of a gun protect gun owners from rape, robbery or the suicide of a loved one.

If they don't comply with the law, they aren't law abiding.

If you think any gun law you suggest will prevent a criminal from getting a gun, you're a damn fool.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you think any law will prevent another misuse of firearms, you're an idiot. I had a gun stolen from my car last year. It was in the glove box under state law, making me think it wasn't the target but a bonus for the thief, the doors were locked, and laws say the person that broke the window getting in can't do that yet it still happened.

I don't believe laws prevent crimes, a law makes an act criminal and provides a punishment. Thus I support requiring any person who wishes to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control a license. And any person who sells a gun to an unlicensed person to be punished by a loss of said license and the surrender of any weapons they own or possess to a licensed gun dealer sans compensation.

so what do you believe does prevent crimes. BTW, the laws aren't made to prevent, they are meant to deter and make people aware that there are consequences. Not to prevent. No where will you find that in any explanation. Deterrence has always been the rationale. It's amazing how many humans don't care about the consequences until after the fact. Oh wait, i didn't mean to that, can I have a mulligan, do-over, oops. Abortion has consequences. Seems the left don't like the consequences and want the opposing view to just shut up and go away. Interesting on how the majorityof the left can't debat any subject matter without getting into a hateful spite.

If someone is deterred from doing a crime because of the punishment the law places on that crime, it prevented the crime.

Thus a law abiding citizen who resides in a State wherein a license is required to drive a car and to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun will comply with the law to avoid punishment and because law abiding citizens obey the law.

And, a law abiding citizen in a State which require a license to own, possess, etc. a gun would never sell a gun to an unlicensed person, again because they are law abiding and they want to avoid punishment.

It's really that simple. The concept does not make law abiding citizens criminals as some have suggested, it simply makes it more difficult for someone who should never own, possess, etc. a gun from getting a gun.

Is it a panacea and will it end all violent murders of innocents? Of course not. But neither do speed limits or other rules of the road prevent death, and neither does ownership of a gun protect gun owners from rape, robbery or the suicide of a loved one.

If they don't comply with the law, they aren't law abiding.

If you think any gun law you suggest will prevent a criminal from getting a gun, you're a damn fool.

Well, I not a fool, nor am I a damn fool. I never suggested, stated or in any other manner wrote that the forms of gun control I have supported would prevent criminals from getting guns.

It seems those on the right can't comprehend the written word, not because they are necessarily fools (or damn fools) but because they may simply be too biased to have an open mind.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't believe laws prevent crimes, a law makes an act criminal and provides a punishment. Thus I support requiring any person who wishes to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control a license. And any person who sells a gun to an unlicensed person to be punished by a loss of said license and the surrender of any weapons they own or possess to a licensed gun dealer sans compensation.

so what do you believe does prevent crimes. BTW, the laws aren't made to prevent, they are meant to deter and make people aware that there are consequences. Not to prevent. No where will you find that in any explanation. Deterrence has always been the rationale. It's amazing how many humans don't care about the consequences until after the fact. Oh wait, i didn't mean to that, can I have a mulligan, do-over, oops. Abortion has consequences. Seems the left don't like the consequences and want the opposing view to just shut up and go away. Interesting on how the majorityof the left can't debat any subject matter without getting into a hateful spite.

If someone is deterred from doing a crime because of the punishment the law places on that crime, it prevented the crime.

Thus a law abiding citizen who resides in a State wherein a license is required to drive a car and to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun will comply with the law to avoid punishment and because law abiding citizens obey the law.

And, a law abiding citizen in a State which require a license to own, possess, etc. a gun would never sell a gun to an unlicensed person, again because they are law abiding and they want to avoid punishment.

It's really that simple. The concept does not make law abiding citizens criminals as some have suggested, it simply makes it more difficult for someone who should never own, possess, etc. a gun from getting a gun.

Is it a panacea and will it end all violent murders of innocents? Of course not. But neither do speed limits or other rules of the road prevent death, and neither does ownership of a gun protect gun owners from rape, robbery or the suicide of a loved one.

If they don't comply with the law, they aren't law abiding.

If you think any gun law you suggest will prevent a criminal from getting a gun, you're a damn fool.

Well, I not a fool, nor am I a damn fool. I never suggested, stated or in any other manner wrote that the forms of gun control I have supported would prevent criminals from getting guns.

It seems those on the right can't comprehend the written word, not because they are necessarily fools (or damn fools) but because they may simply be too biased to have an open mind.

Then you must support gun laws making it harder for law abiding citizens that wouldn't misuse guns from getting them.

It seems you're another one that thinks having an open mind means believing like you. That makes you a damn fool whether you believe it or not.

 

[Flash]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

 

[Conservative65]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Since I didn't vote for Obama, don't include me in that "we".

 

[jc456]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Since I didn't vote for Obama, don't include me in that "we".

ha!!!!

 

[Flash]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Since I didn't vote for Obama, don't include me in that "we".

I wasn't referring to you. It was a general statement to reinforce what you said.

 

[Conservative65]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Since I didn't vote for Obama, don't include me in that "we".

I wasn't referring to you. It was a general statement to reinforce what you said.

Just making clear that this "we" didn't vote for him. Thanks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

These Moon Bats always want somebody else to pay for their stuff.

They are too sorry to provide for their own well being. That is just too much for them to have to bear.

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

Straw man fallacy.

No one believes in, nor advocates, any such thing.

 

[Conservative65]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

These Moon Bats always want somebody else to pay for their stuff.

They are too sorry to provide for their own well being. That is just too much for them to have to bear.

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

Straw man fallacy.

No one believes in, nor advocates, any such thing.

The only straw man here is you and it's because you don't have a brain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Ignorant, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one has allowed, nor seeks, “the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery.”

Conservative dogma can be truly ridiculous.

 

[Flash]

Ignorant, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one has allowed, nor seeks, “the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery.”

Conservative dogma can be truly ridiculous.

Bullshit! You are delusional. They don't call them The Free Shit Army for nothing.

They want the government to steal money from the people that earn it and give it to them. Food stamps, health insurance subsidies, housing subsidies, free college, disability payments, environmental wacko subsidies, free birth control, you name it. Their Messiah was promising them all kinds of free shit in his speech tonight.

 

[JoeB131]

then why not kill the ones that were not aborted? Kill them at one week of age, don't make the mother care for them, or make society care for them------------if the mom doesn't want them, just kill them, right?

No woman goes through nine months of pregnancy unless she REALLY WANTS a baby.

 

[JoeB131]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

Being a decent human being is unacceptable to you. You'd rather have a bad result than ever pay a dime for a good one.

 

[JoeMoma]

then why not kill the ones that were not aborted? Kill them at one week of age, don't make the mother care for them, or make society care for them------------if the mom doesn't want them, just kill them, right?

No woman goes through nine months of pregnancy unless she REALLY WANTS a baby.

A woman's perogative is to change her mind. And if she does, why should other people care if she "aborts" her new born baby?

 

[Conservative65]

" . . and better access to contraception"

Don't you mean the taxpayers, once again, should be forced to provide it to someone else? That's unacceptable.

Being a decent human being is unacceptable to you. You'd rather have a bad result than ever pay a dime for a good one.

So, in your simple mind, people being willing to be forced to constantly give other people things they should be providing themselves makes them a decent human being.

How about those constantly demanding things be decent humans and do for themselves for a change.

 

[Conservative65]

When they want something, suddenly it's a right that someone else has to pay for when they can't.

The sad thing is that we have allowed the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery. If you want something all you have to do is vote for some dickhead like Obama to get it for you.

Ignorant, hyperbolic nonsense.

No one has allowed, nor seeks, “the government to be an instrument of greed and thievery.”

Conservative dogma can be truly ridiculous.

The people that go to the government in order to get money earned by someone else are greedy.