Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

So you would tell someone who was adopted, that they should have been aborted because their parents didn't want them? If a potential good outcome for an unwanted person is not the determining factor, then why is a potential bad outcome the determining factor?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. She has the right to choices. I just don't agree with all of them. That is equally my right.

That’s called a straw man argument. An adopted person was not aborted and therefore the question of whether their parents wanted them or not is moot. Whether they are a “potential good outcome” or a “potential bad outcome” is not a factor to me, that is a factor to you. The factor to me is whether the fetus is viable and whether the woman wants it. Abortion isn’t my preference but I cannot reach into another woman’s body. That is the thought process of a misogynistic barbarian who thinks a woman does not know what is best for her.

You couch your position in vagaries like “options.” What are those options? What is your position? Either you want the government intimately involved in this decision or you do not.

I didn't bring up the "potential outcome" argument. I was responding to it.

Options: 1) Abort the baby. 2) Have the baby and raise it. 3) Have the baby and place it for adoption.

My position is this: The government is already intimately involved in this decision. See Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The government was ASKED to be intimately involved, and it was inclined to do so when the SC decided to hear these cases. They have nade their decision on a woman's right to choose one of the above options. I just don't agree with one of them. Just like you don't agree with at least one of them.

Actually, you don’t comprehend what I agree with. I get it.

I think you just have this mental block where you don’t get that a person may think that an abortion is a bad choice but that it is a woman’s right. That’s a real lack of empathy on your part but I guess that’s your prerogative.

Maybe because my mother was a physician and she watched a woman bleed out and die from a botched illegal abortion, I have been raised to understand this. It’s unfortunate that you don’t grasp this- if abortions are illegal, more pregnant women and their fetuses will die. Full stop. You are so attached to this symbolic baby you have missed the forest for the trees.

Over time it has become clear to me that the issue is controlling women’s sexuality, and I find it gross.. If people who are so passionate about babies in this thread would advocate for free birth control, expanded sex education, and expanded social supports- that would actually reduce abortions. Instead they whine about the women having abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Neither want the baby. The woman pays the price. Men can go off and have as much sex as they want without consequences.

No, they can’t. It’s called child support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

That’s an extremely selfish view. And yes, an unborn child can live outside the womb. That’s been possible for decades. I know you’d like to think it is all about the woman, but it isn’t. Also, no one is running around trying to punish women. They are instead trying to save babies. Again, it is back to the scientific point where the baby can be sustained outside of the womb. At that point, abortion should be called murder, not abortion. Yes, of course there are medical circumstances that can prove the exception, but economics and convenience aren’t justification for murdering a human entity capable of being sustained outside the womb. I see this as no different than mass disposal of homeless people off our city streets, but we don’t do that do we? I know you won’t be convinced as you’re incapable of taking emotion out of your thought process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

So you would tell someone who was adopted, that they should have been aborted because their parents didn't want them? If a potential good outcome for an unwanted person is not the determining factor, then why is a potential bad outcome the determining factor?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. She has the right to choices. I just don't agree with all of them. That is equally my right.

That’s called a straw man argument. An adopted person was not aborted and therefore the question of whether their parents wanted them or not is moot. Whether they are a “potential good outcome” or a “potential bad outcome” is not a factor to me, that is a factor to you. The factor to me is whether the fetus is viable and whether the woman wants it. Abortion isn’t my preference but I cannot reach into another woman’s body. That is the thought process of a misogynistic barbarian who thinks a woman does not know what is best for her.

You couch your position in vagaries like “options.” What are those options? What is your position? Either you want the government intimately involved in this decision or you do not.

I didn't bring up the "potential outcome" argument. I was responding to it.

Options: 1) Abort the baby. 2) Have the baby and raise it. 3) Have the baby and place it for adoption.

My position is this: The government is already intimately involved in this decision. See Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The government was ASKED to be intimately involved, and it was inclined to do so when the SC decided to hear these cases. They have nade their decision on a woman's right to choose one of the above options. I just don't agree with one of them. Just like you don't agree with at least one of them.

Actually, you don’t comprehend what I agree with. I get it.

I think you just have this mental block where you don’t get that a person may think that an abortion is a bad choice but that it is a woman’s right. That’s a real lack of empathy on your part but I guess that’s your prerogative.

Maybe because my mother was a physician and she watched a woman bleed out and die from a botched illegal abortion, I have been raised to understand this. It’s unfortunate that you don’t grasp this- if abortions are illegal, more pregnant women and their fetuses will die. Full stop. You are so attached to this symbolic baby you have missed the forest for the trees.

Over time it has become clear to me that the issue is controlling women’s sexuality, and I find it gross.. If people who are so passionate about babies in this thread would advocate for free birth control, expanded sex education, and expanded social supports- that would actually reduce abortions. Instead they whine about the women having abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Neither want the baby. The woman pays the price. Men can go off and have as much sex as they want without consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

So you would tell someone who was adopted, that they should have been aborted because their parents didn't want them? If a potential good outcome for an unwanted person is not the determining factor, then why is a potential bad outcome the determining factor?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. She has the right to choices. I just don't agree with all of them. That is equally my right.

That’s called a straw man argument. An adopted person was not aborted and therefore the question of whether their parents wanted them or not is moot. Whether they are a “potential good outcome” or a “potential bad outcome” is not a factor to me, that is a factor to you. The factor to me is whether the fetus is viable and whether the woman wants it. Abortion isn’t my preference but I cannot reach into another woman’s body. That is the thought process of a misogynistic barbarian who thinks a woman does not know what is best for her.

You couch your position in vagaries like “options.” What are those options? What is your position? Either you want the government intimately involved in this decision or you do not.

I didn't bring up the "potential outcome" argument. I was responding to it.

Options: 1) Abort the baby. 2) Have the baby and raise it. 3) Have the baby and place it for adoption.

My position is this: The government is already intimately involved in this decision. See Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The government was ASKED to be intimately involved, and it was inclined to do so when the SC decided to hear these cases. They have nade their decision on a woman's right to choose one of the above options. I just don't agree with one of them. Just like you don't agree with at least one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

So you would tell someone who was adopted, that they should have been aborted because their parents didn't want them? If a potential good outcome for an unwanted person is not the determining factor, then why is a potential bad outcome the determining factor?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. She has the right to choices. I just don't agree with all of them. That is equally my right.

That’s called a straw man argument. An adopted person was not aborted and therefore the question of whether their parents wanted them or not is moot. Whether they are a “potential good outcome” or a “potential bad outcome” is not a factor to me, that is a factor to you. The factor to me is whether the fetus is viable and whether the woman wants it. Abortion isn’t my preference but I cannot reach into another woman’s body. That is the thought process of a misogynistic barbarian who thinks a woman does not know what is best for her.

You couch your position in vagaries like “options.” What are those options? What is your position? Either you want the government intimately involved in this decision or you do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

So you would tell someone who was adopted, that they should have been aborted because their parents didn't want them? If a potential good outcome for an unwanted person is not the determining factor, then why is a potential bad outcome the determining factor?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. She has the right to choices. I just don't agree with all of them. That is equally my right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

There are also plenty of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome, who were neglected and abused, and have horrible lives because they were not wanted. So the fact that some people have a good outcome is not the determining factor.

Look, I would not have an abortion, but I’ve been pregnant and I can’t comprehend forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That is barbaric. I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who offers lip service to “babies” without realizing that the pregnant woman was once a baby herself and has parents and people who love her, and deserves the right to decide what to do with her health and body. Pregnancy is a serious condition and abortion is a medical procedure. You don’t want to live in a country where women get illegal abortions. It is monstrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

Because that baby deserves a chance to live. There are plenty of people who were adopted, that live normal lives....even though their biological parents did not want them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?