Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Not just child support, if we’re going to force births, men should be required to do 50% of child rearing as well. No pay8n* some money and getting off scot-free if women no longer have that option.

In general, if you choose a good guy with good intentions who's not high or drunk, he'll be that kind of loving, supportive, hands-on dad.

So all guys should be sterilized until we know if they are a “good guy with good intentions”.

PP here. I didn't even remotely suggest what you indicated. I'm referring to being more selective about sex partners--the possible father of your child (i.e., boyfriends, and husbands).

What does that have to do with abortions? Other than that MUV must be immediately implemented, so women have time to assess whether their partners are good prospective fathers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Not just child support, if we’re going to force births, men should be required to do 50% of child rearing as well. No pay8n* some money and getting off scot-free if women no longer have that option.

In general, if you choose a good guy with good intentions who's not high or drunk, he'll be that kind of loving, supportive, hands-on dad.

So all guys should be sterilized until we know if they are a “good guy with good intentions”.

PP here. I didn't even remotely suggest what you indicated. I'm referring to being more selective about sex partners--the possible father of your child (i.e., boyfriends, and husbands).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Not just child support, if we’re going to force births, men should be required to do 50% of child rearing as well. No pay8n* some money and getting off scot-free if women no longer have that option.

In general, if you choose a good guy with good intentions who's not high or drunk, he'll be that kind of loving, supportive, hands-on dad.

So all guys should be sterilized until we know if they are a “good guy with good intentions”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Not just child support, if we’re going to force births, men should be required to do 50% of child rearing as well. No pay8n* some money and getting off scot-free if women no longer have that option.

In general, if you choose a good guy with good intentions who's not high or drunk, he'll be that kind of loving, supportive, hands-on dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Not just child support, if we’re going to force births, men should be required to do 50% of child rearing as well. No pay8n* some money and getting off scot-free if women no longer have that option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Yes vasectomy for guys who are not ready for fatherhood and don’t have to worry about child support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

can you say that again but in english this time

English is my 5th language, reading, writing and 6th speaking. Tied not tight but hopefully you get the message.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Don’t forget the vasectomies, those are critical for preventing unwanted pregnancies because you can’t get pregnant without sperm. And it’s a much simpler and lower-risk procedure than having your tubes tied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

can you say that again but in english this time

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot preach the sanctity of life until access to safe and reliable contraceptives is freely available to poor, uninsured, working poor and those financially struggling

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Perfect. Have tubes tightened, shots, birth control pills or close the legs. Whatever it takes to not get pregnant. After doing all these and still have babies, then there should be different debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What differrnce does the reason matter? No woman should be forced to have a child against her will and I do not care who the father is!

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they did not declare personhood on embryos even if many pro-life people believe that life begins at conception. I am guessing that they did not want to destroy the IVF industry and Georgia and Alabama?

I'm always surprised that there aren't a lot more pro-life people protesting at IVF clinics because you have so many embryos that are destroyed and you have embryos that are Frozen having some kind of jail state for years, even decades.