Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Again…do you understand what TFMR means, PP? Do you know anyone who has had to make that heart wrenching decision?
Women terminating after the point of viability often have MEDICAL reasons for doing so. It doesn’t just happen on a whim. It isn’t denying a baby to an infertile couple.
I dealt with infertility myself. You have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Again…do you understand what TFMR means, PP? Do you know anyone who has had to make that heart wrenching decision?
Women terminating after the point of viability often have MEDICAL reasons for doing so. It doesn’t just happen on a whim. It isn’t denying a baby to an infertile couple.
I dealt with infertility myself. You have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We haven't had any abortion laws at all here in Canada for 30 years and the sky hasn't fallen. It it considered a medical procedure decided on between a woman and her doctor and nobody else's business.
This is why we can’t take you unequivocally pro abortion people seriously. It’s the man’s business too — if as the man want to keep the baby I should be able to. In addition, if I as a man don’t want to pay for the baby but the woman wants to keep it, I should have to. Men should have the same rights as women in the matter otherwise women have all the rights, men have none, and the baby that you murdered has none.
Okay, hun. As soon as the fetus can be transferred to your body to carry you go for it.
LOL we all know you would never in a million years agree to lend your body for 9 months to gestate a pregnancy.
Agreed.
No more ending the life of a fetus once it’s viable without its mother.
You can choose not to end the life of a fetus once it’s viable without its mother. I might choose otherwise.
Precisely! It’s ALL about ending the life of the fetus, not about “my body, my choice”.
It’s important to be honest, and you deserve a huge - Thank You! - for your honesty here.
If you care to listen to the science, the fetus doesn’t need its biomother very long at all. So WHY kill it when SO many women are longing to become mothers?
That’s just plain mean and ANTI-feminist! …to deny another woman the opportunity to mother your unwanted fetus.
I’m not a free surrogate. No thanks. If I wanted to be a surrogate I’d choose to be and command tens of thousands of dollars in exchange.
No one said the infertile parents wouldn’t pay you for your trouble. Many of them can afford to pay you quite a bit. You’d also be SAVING yourself $$$$ by not having to pay the abortionist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Giving up a child for adoption is traumatic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Nobody? Plenty of babies are “terminated” past the point of viability. When so many loving women are infertile, and able to cover all associated costs, it’s anti feminist not to allow a simple adoption. It would cost you nothing.
It’s so nasty to unnecessarily end the life of your little girl (or boy), just to deny them to survive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?
Don’t care unless it’s completely free and requires zero parental involvement (for minors).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Until every foster kid has a home, the “but what about adoption” crowd should shut up. They only want white newborns. That’s not pro-life.
That’s so untrue. I know many people who adopted children that were not their own color. I know many, many people who adopted older children. Tons of people.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
You clearly haven’t read this whole thread. Get a clue and learn about the tragic, dangerous and heartbreaking situations that produce the tiny number of abortions of viable fetuses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?
Yes, it is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When the baby is already viable, you don’t need to “remain” pregnant. You are no longer needed. So why kill the baby?
Nobody has an abortion past the point of viability, for the most part.
Excellent birth control available for women and men. Or is that too much trouble?