Democrats Start A War On Women At Democrat Convention

[Jack Fate]

Yes, I found it hard to believe, but it's true. A new war on women.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/21/feminists-slam-dnc-for-discrimination-against-mothers-during-convention/

[Mister D]

Can feminism get any sillier?

[bladimz]

Yes, I found it hard to believe, but it's true. A new war on women.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/21/feminists-slam-dnc-for-discrimination-against-mothers-during-convention/

... you mean "A War on Mothers with Children under the Age of Six", doncha. :thumbsup20:

[Agravan]

... you mean "A War on Mothers with Children under the Age of Six", doncha. :thumbsup20:

Don't they qualify as women to you??

[Mainecoons]

You mean the children they didn't abort?

Too bad your mother didn't, Blat.

[WalterSobchak]

You mean the children they didn't abort?

Too bad your mother didn't, Blat.


Awwww, what a sweet thing to say! How very Christian of you!

[coolwalker]

The dems are having a convention? Wow, for a moment there I forgot they were a Party since I've been thinking they were more like a large gang.

[WalterSobchak]

The dems are having a convention? Wow, for a moment there I forgot they were a Party since I've been thinking they were more like a large gang.


http://i.qkme.me/358a3b.jpg

[Goldie Locks]

No breast feeding on the convention floor???...No child care???

Yuuup, war on women and children!!!

Of course the only democrats who have children are on welfare and food stamps...guess they don't want them there.

[WalterSobchak]

No breast feeding on the convention floor???...No child care???

Yuuup, war on women and children!!!

Of course the only democrats who have children are on welfare and food stamps...guess they don't want them there.


And just think, the utopia you cons aspire to live in, where every unwanted baby will have to live on wellfare or foodstamps, living off of our taxpaying money. Simply because you guys stop caring for the baby AFTER it has been born.

[Conley]

Agreed - it's a point worth making because somewhere it got lost in the shuffle. Pro-lifers need to be willing to give these kids a chance, and yes it's going to come out of your tax dollars...can't have it both ways.

[Goldie Locks]

That's a pretty broad brush there saying no cons give anything to children not there own. It's a known fact that the religious and the conservative party give more to charity than anyone.

[Captain Obvious]

Funny how now Goldie understands the concept of painting with a broad brush.

If someone kills say a shop clerk because they need money for whatever, is it the responsibility of those demanding justice to make sure that the killer has another better source of income? No it is not, nor is it the direct responsibility of the right-to-lifers to ensure that all children are raised properly.

It is, my opinion of course, all of our responsibility to a certain degree that children are raised properly but reality is, nobody has more responsibility for that purpose than the parents of that child. They have ultimate responsibility. Right-to-lifers prime purpose is to ensure that babies aren't butchered mercilessly before they have a chance to take their first breath and give life a go. If that baby is lucky enough to get past the heathens wanting to murder them before they are borne, there are a lot of factors involving that child's chances of having a good life, but they have to have life first and foremost.

[Conley]

That's a pretty broad brush there saying no cons give anything to children not there own. It's a known fact that the religious and the conservative party give more to charity than anyone.

I didn't say that though...I would never say conservatives don't give anything to children. There are many tremendously generous conservatives.

As far as religious donors go, there are plenty of liberals who are religious as well. Some conservatives like to pretend they have a monopoly on religion and patriotism but I assure you there are religious and patriotic liberals too.

[Conley]

Funny how now Goldie understands the concept of painting with a broad brush.

If someone kills say a shop clerk because they need money for whatever, is it the responsibility of those demanding justice to make sure that the killer has another better source of income? No it is not, nor is it the direct responsibility of the right-to-lifers to ensure that all children are raised properly.

It is, my opinion of course, all of our responsibility to a certain degree that children are raised properly but reality is, nobody has more responsibility for that purpose than the parents of that child. They have ultimate responsibility. Right-to-lifers prime purpose is to ensure that babies aren't butchered mercilessly before they have a chance to take their first breath and give life a go. If that baby is lucky enough to get past the heathens wanting to murder them before they are borne, there are a lot of factors involving that child's chances of having a good life, but they have to have life first and foremost.

I don't think your analogy works because you're focusing on the killer...maybe if the killer had some small children who couldn't support themselves after daddy got the death penalty it would be closer to the issue.

Sure, the parents are most responsible for the kid and should be. Still, when this country is paying billions per jet fighter and people are raising a stink about school lunches it suggests to me that priorities might be a little outta whack.

[Captain Obvious]

But how is it right-to-lifers to solve all of our socioeconomic problems first before their plight can be legitimized?

Their goal is to ensure that children aren't murdered before they're borne. If they can accomplish that, anything after that is gravy, but not solely their direct responsibility.

[Captain Obvious]

I said that with a Brit accent, btw. Must be hanging around Cary too much.

[Conley]

But how is it right-to-lifers to solve all of our socioeconomic problems first before their plight can be legitimized?

Their goal is to ensure that children aren't murdered before they're borne. If they can accomplish that, anything after that is gravy, but not solely their direct responsibility.

Your first line is an extreme exaggeration.

I'm not saying right-to-lifers need to solve the economy first, or that their cause isn't a noble one, or that they bear all responsibility for raising the kids. Those are all strawmen. As far the line about everything after birth is gravy, I'm not sure that's true - especially for crack babies, the alcohol affected ones, the spina bifida babies, and others

"borne"? You are hanging with Cary too much! :laugh:

[Agravan]

I don't think your analogy works because you're focusing on the killer...maybe if the killer had some small children who couldn't support themselves after daddy got the death penalty it would be closer to the issue.

Sure, the parents are most responsible for the kid and should be. Still, when this country is paying billions per jet fighter and people are raising a stink about school lunches it suggests to me that priorities might be a little outta whack.

I don't think people are so much raising a stink about school lunches as much as they are tired of supporting the mothers who have baby after baby in order to receive more handouts from the government. Unless you are prepared to support your children, you should have some sort of implant that would prevent pregnancy. I can see an young lady getting pregnant accidentally and needing help for herself and her child. I have no problem with that. Or even some mother that finds herself and her children suddenly need help. I have absolutely no problem with them receiving Food Stamps or AFDC until they get their feet back under them. What I do have a problem with, as I mentioned, is the person who, knowing the government will send them more money for each child, deliberately has child after child and makes no attempt to pull herself up and find a job where she can support her children. I know you guys are going to say "no one can live off a minimum wage job." That is true. But who is at fault here? The employer paying minimum wage for a fast food or menial position, or the potential employee who refuses to take the time and effort to learn a school that would land them a better job? Minimum wage jobs are for people just starting out, it's a place to learn some skills, not to live off of.

In closing, conservatives, in general, do not mind helping the people that truly need help (the sick, elderly, hurt, or victims of economic misfortune), but not the people who just refuse to help themselves and instead seek to live off of other people's (the taxpayers') largesse.

[Captain Obvious]

Your first line is an extreme exaggeration.

I'm not saying right-to-lifers need to solve the economy first, or that their cause isn't a noble one, or that they bear all responsibility for raising the kids. Those are all strawmen. As far the line about everything after birth is gravy, I'm not sure that's true - especially for crack babies, the alcohol affected ones, the spina bifida babies, and others

"borne"? You are hanging with Cary too much! :laugh:

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all.

Put it in another context, so are you suggesting that a good way to solve the child poverty problem is to just kill them? Hell, we can't raise them correctly, hack 'em up for chum.

That's essentially what is being suggested by defending abortion as a method to curb the child poverty issue, just butcher them before they have a chance to suffer poverty.

I reject that viewpoint. Life, to me at least - maybe not to some is the utmost priority. Anything that happens after that is circumstantial, but before anyone has a chance to fail or succeed in life, to have a good or otherwise life, they need life first.

[Goldie Locks]

Any party who alignes themselves with the killing of babies in the womb...is a sick bunch.

[Captain Obvious]

Any party who alignes themselves with the killing of babies in the womb...is a sick bunch.

Does that include Romney?

Wait... before you answer, what is the current phase of the moon?

[Goldie Locks]

Does that include Romney?

Wait... before you answer, what is the current phase of the moon?

Romney is pro death???

[Captain Obvious]

Depends.

What do you want him to be?

Or you can simply google his mood ring tendencies and find out directly.

[Goldie Locks]

Depends.

What do you want him to be?

Or you can simply google his mood ring tendencies and find out directly.


Leftist loser, America hater.

[Conley]

I don't think people are so much raising a stink about school lunches as much as they are tired of supporting the mothers who have baby after baby in order to receive more handouts from the government. Unless you are prepared to support your children, you should have some sort of implant that would prevent pregnancy. I can see an young lady getting pregnant accidentally and needing help for herself and her child. I have no problem with that. Or even some mother that finds herself and her children suddenly need help. I have absolutely no problem with them receiving Food Stamps or AFDC until they get their feet back under them. What I do have a problem with, as I mentioned, is the person who, knowing the government will send them more money for each child, deliberately has child after child and makes no attempt to pull herself up and find a job where she can support her children. I know you guys are going to say "no one can live off a minimum wage job." That is true. But who is at fault here? The employer paying minimum wage for a fast food or menial position, or the potential employee who refuses to take the time and effort to learn a school that would land them a better job? Minimum wage jobs are for people just starting out, it's a place to learn some skills, not to live off of.

In closing, conservatives, in general, do not mind helping the people that truly need help (the sick, elderly, hurt, or victims of economic misfortune), but not the people who just refuse to help themselves and instead seek to live off of other people's (the taxpayers') largesse.

Great post...I agree with all of it. I'd like to see these social programs audited and those who abuse them be made examples of. There's no doubt there's a lot of corruption and misused funds, and we also need to make sure the benefits go towards the kids and not towards the parents. Same thing with unemployment for example, we can't encourage people to stay out of work just like we can't encourage unfit parents to keep popping them out to collect checks from the government.

[Conley]

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all.

Put it in another context, so are you suggesting that a good way to solve the child poverty problem is to just kill them? Hell, we can't raise them correctly, hack 'em up for chum.

That's essentially what is being suggested by defending abortion as a method to curb the child poverty issue, just butcher them before they have a chance to suffer poverty.

I reject that viewpoint. Life, to me at least - maybe not to some is the utmost priority. Anything that happens after that is circumstantial, but before anyone has a chance to fail or succeed in life, to have a good or otherwise life, they need life first.

Huh? Please point me towards any post where I've been pro-abortion, much less encouraging kids to get hacked up to balance the budget. My point has been to show a little compassion -- there's far to little of it in this world.

[Conley]

Romney is pro death???

Where does he stand on the death penalty? And is there a difference between what he says now and what he did as governor?

[Captain Obvious]

I wasn't implying that you were pro-abortion, I tried to be careful not to.

But my point still stands.

[Conley]

I wasn't implying that you were pro-abortion, I tried to be careful not to.

But my point still stands.

Ok, cool...but I think we are still not understanding each other. It's a passionate issue, harder than most to discuss for me and probably you too

[Goldie Locks]

The issue is dems are for killing unborn babies and the cons are not for killing unborn babies. Ubama is even for killing unborn babies just weeks before they are born.

[WalterSobchak]

That's a pretty broad brush there saying no cons give anything to children not there own. It's a known fact that the religious and the conservative party give more to charity than anyone.


No breast feeding on the convention floor???...No child care???

Yuuup, war on women and children!!!

Of course the only democrats who have children are on welfare and food stamps...guess they don't want them there.



I think some beer might have come out of my nose after I read the above.

LMAO

[WalterSobchak]

The issue is dems are for killing unborn babies and the cons are not for killing unborn babies. Ubama is even for killing unborn babies just weeks before they are born.


No, the issue is that the Dems are for letting the Woman have the choice of what to do with her own body.

Listen, I am hell bent against Women getting an abortion as a form of birth control. But banning abortion all together is NOT the way to go.

[Goldie Locks]

I think some beer might have come out of my nose after I read the above.

LMAO

Good, hope you choke on it.

[Goldie Locks]

No, the issue is that the Dems are for letting the Woman have the choice of what to do with her own body.

Listen, I am hell bent against Women getting an abortion as a form of birth control. But banning abortion all together is NOT the way to go.

Ok, lets just have abortion for rape, incest or life of the mother then...what do we do with the other nearly 3 million abortions?

[WalterSobchak]

Good, hope you choke on it.


How very Christian of you.

I will pray for your sins tonight before I lay to sleep.

[Goldie Locks]

How very Christian of you.

I will pray for your sins tonight before I lay to sleep.

Fuck off, baby killer.

[Agravan]

No, the issue is that the Dems are for letting the Woman have the choice of what to do with her own body.

Listen, I am hell bent against Women getting an abortion as a form of birth control. But banning abortion all together is NOT the way to go.
So you're ok with her murdering an innocent child for convenience?
If she wants sex without a baby as a consequence,, then get fixed. Simple solution.

[WalterSobchak]

Ok, lets just have abortion for rape, incest or life of the mother then...what do we do with the other nearly 3 million abortions?


Hell if I know how to deal with it. I just know how I feel about it.

[WalterSobchak]

Fuck off, baby killer.


I may have to pray twice for you Goldie. You poor angry soul, you.

[Goldie Locks]

Hell if I know how to deal with it. I just know how I feel about it.

Well??? You are either for killing babies in the womb or not...get off the fucking fence.

[WalterSobchak]

So you're ok with her murdering an innocent child for convenience?
If she wants sex without a baby as a consequence,, then get fixed. Simple solution.


What part of, I am hell bent against women getting an abortion as a form of birth control do you not understand?

[Conley]

So you're ok with her murdering an innocent child for convenience?
If she wants sex without a baby as a consequence,, then get fixed. Simple solution.

Here's a question. Would you support government money being used for voluntary sterilization? I would...and I'd rather see it being spent on that than abortions. Not sure if that makes me a monster but that's how I feel.

[Goldie Locks]

I may have to pray twice for you Goldie. You poor angry soul, you.

Angry when it comes to killing babies. What a vile evil party is the democrats who want to kill innocent babies and you want to pray for me???

[Agravan]

The issue is dems are for killing unborn babies and the cons are not for killing unborn babies. Ubama is even for killing unborn babies just weeks before they are born.
Obama is for partial birth abortions and against giving babies that survive the abortion process get medical attention. He just wants to let them die even though they are living babies. Therefore: obama likes to kill babies.

[WalterSobchak]

Well??? You are either for killing babies in the womb or not...get off the fucking fence.


I am for the current law to stay the way it is. It's none of my fucking business what a woman does with her OWN body, no matter how I may feel about it. And quite frankly, it's none of your damn business either.

[Agravan]

Here's a question. Would you support government money being used for voluntary sterilization? I would...and I'd rather see it being spent on that than abortions. Not sure if that makes me a monster but that's how I feel.
Yes. As you say, better that than abortions.

[Agravan]

I am for the current law to stay the way it is. It's none of my fucking business what a woman does with her OWN body, no matter how I may feel about it. And quite frankly, it's none of your damn business either.
It may be her body, but the baby is an indivividual human life, not her arm or leg.

[Goldie Locks]

I am for the current law to stay the way it is. It's none of my fucking business what a woman does with her OWN body, no matter how I may feel about it. And quite frankly, it's none of your damn business either.

Yes, it is. God says it is evil to kill babies. Guess you think murder is up to the woman huh??? Good luck with that.

[Goldie Locks]

I am for the current law to stay the way it is. It's none of my fucking business what a woman does with her OWN body, no matter how I may feel about it. And quite frankly, it's none of your damn business either.

You're a doctor, how many babies would you kill?

[WalterSobchak]

It may be her body, but the baby is an indivividual human life, not her arm or leg.


True, but when is the kicker.

[Agravan]

At conception.

[WalterSobchak]

Yes, it is. God says it is evil to kill babies. Guess you think murder is up to the woman huh??? Good luck with that.


So God is ok if you murder your baby because you may die. But you will go to hell if you murder your baby because you were raped by your Uncle? Interesting

[WalterSobchak]

At conception.


Prove it

[Goldie Locks]

So God is ok if you murder your baby because you may die. But you will go to hell if you murder your baby because you were raped by your Uncle? Interesting

Rape, incest or the life of the mother, how do you accept the other 3 million abortions every year??? I hope you do realize that those are nominal compared to the rest???

[WalterSobchak]

Rape, incest or the life of the mother, how do you accept the other 3 million abortions every year??? I hope you do realize that those are nominal compared to the rest???


So is killing ALL babies evil in God's eyes? If so, how can you sit there and tell me you are ok in the KILLING of these babies for the reasons you gave above?

[roadmaster]

Prove it

We don't have to, we know it is. You prove it's not.

[Goldie Locks]

I'm pregnant and it is not rape or incest and does not threaten my life, do you agree I can have an abortion?

[Agravan]

Prove it

You're the one that advocates killing babies. You prove it doesn't.

[Goldie Locks]

So is killing ALL babies evil in God's eyes? If so, how can you sit there and tell me you are ok in the KILLING of these babies for the reasons you gave above?

Just using the left reasoning...not mine.

[WalterSobchak]

We don't have to, we know it is. You prove it's not.


Ah, your one of those type of debators. Got it. Thanks.

[roadmaster]

Ah, your one of those type of debators. Got it. Thanks.

If you can't prove it why don't you just say you don't know.

[WalterSobchak]

I'm pregnant and it is not rape or incest and does not threaten my life, do you agree I can have an abortion?


I support your right to do WTF you wan't to do with your own body.

[Goldie Locks]

I support your right to do WTF you wan't to do with your own body.

So, you're OK with killing babies..got it.

[WalterSobchak]

You're the one that advocates killing babies. You prove it doesn't.


That's why your side always fail, year after year when you bring social issues up such as abortion. You sound like asshats talking about it.

[WalterSobchak]

So, you're OK with killing babies..got it.


I support your rights as a woman to do what you want to do with your own body in the USA.

[Agravan]

Ah, your one of those type of debators. Got it. Thanks.

It's called "faith". You would'nt understand if you don't have it. It's almost like the faith you have in your own infalability

[WalterSobchak]

If you can't prove it why don't you just say you don't know.


Science has already proven you wrong. I was just trying to give you a fighting chance.

[Goldie Locks]

That's why your side always fail, year after year when you bring social issues up such as abortion. You sound like asshats talking about it.

So killing babies means nothing to you?

[Goldie Locks]

I support your rights as a woman to do what you want to do with your own body in the USA.

So killing babies even just hours before birth is OK with you?

[WalterSobchak]

It's called "faith". You would'nt understand if you don't have it. It's almost like the faith you have in your own infalability


I don't need faith to support your rights as a citizen in this Country.

[roadmaster]

I support your right to do WTF you wan't to do with your own body.

Then it should be ok to kill the child an hour after it's born, it came from her body.

[WalterSobchak]

So killing babies means nothing to you?

Of course it does

[WalterSobchak]

So killing babies even just hours before birth is OK with you?

If it meant my wife's life.................yes.

[Goldie Locks]

Of course it does

What exactly?

[roadmaster]

Science has already proven you wrong. I was just trying to give you a fighting chance.

Wrong He knows us before we are born.

[WalterSobchak]

Then it should be ok to kill the child an hour after it's born, it came from her body.


That is not abortion. That's murder.

[Goldie Locks]

If it meant my wife's life.................yes.

What about the other 3 million?

[WalterSobchak]

Wrong He knows us before we are born.

Who is he?

[WalterSobchak]

What about the other 3 million?


I already told you my answer about them.

[roadmaster]

If it meant my wife's life.................yes.

That is a different story. Of course anyone would to save the wife.

[Agravan]

Science has already proven you wrong. I was just trying to give you a fighting chance.
Are these the same scientists that predicted a global Ice Age in the 70's? Or are these the same guys that came up with Global warming now, and then changed that to climate change?
Please provide a link to the "science" that has proven that life does not begin at conception.

[Goldie Locks]

I already told you my answer about them.

I must have missed it...what was it again?

[roadmaster]

Who is he?

Jesus

[WalterSobchak]

That is a different story. Of course anyone would to save the wife.


It's still killing a baby, is it not?

[Agravan]

I don't need faith to support your rights as a citizen in this Country.
I see you don't understand the concept of faith as it pertains to the subject of life.
What about the rights of the child, do you support those as well?

[WalterSobchak]

Are these the same scientists that predicted a global Ice Age in the 70's? Or are these the same guys that came up with Global warming now, and then changed that to climate change?
Please provide a link to the "science" that has proven that life does not begin at conception.


Your asertion, not mine. I am not going to do your work for you.

[WalterSobchak]

I must have missed it...what was it again?


This thread is only 9 pages long Goldie. Your a big girl, I have faith you can find my original response.

[roadmaster]

It's still killing a baby, is it not?

It is not murder.

[WalterSobchak]

It is not murder.

It is in God's eyes, is it not?

[Goldie Locks]

Walter...so you are OK with abortion in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother, is that correct? So, you would be willing to overturn Roe vs Wade in all cases but these?

[WalterSobchak]

OK folks, time for bed. I will enjoy speaking to you all tomorrow.

And Goldie, I will pray for your sins, I promise.

[roadmaster]

It is in God's eyes, is it not?

No, you must not know Him.

[Agravan]

Your asertion, not mine. I am not going to do your work for you.
No, actually you claim there is proof that life does not begin at conception. Therefore, you must have seen the evidence, read it, understood it and have a link to it. You made the claim, now provide your link, otherwise you're just making it up.

[WalterSobchak]

Walter...so you are OK with abortion in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother, is that correct? So, you would be willing to overturn Roe vs Wade in all cases but these?


In an ideal world...............yes. But it is impossible.

[Goldie Locks]

OK...I see I will not get an answer...from Walter the chicken shit.

[WalterSobchak]

OK...I see I will not get an answer...from Walter the chicken shit.

I answered your question Goldie.

And what are you..................10?

[WalterSobchak]

No, actually you claim there is proof that life does not begin at conception. Therefore, you must have seen the evidence, read it, understood it and have a link to it. You made the claim, now provide your link, otherwise you're just making it up.


I didn't make the claim that life begins at conception. You did.


Now prove it.

[Jack Fate]

I didn't make the claim that life begins at conception. You did.


Now prove it.

A living human being is produced at conception. Biological fact. Science.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

[WalterSobchak]

A living human being is produced at conception.


Prove it.

[Captain Obvious]

I take the outcomes approach that, so far no murderous butcher baby killer can rationalize with.

Outcomes - what happens virtually 100% of the time when human sperm meets egg, what is produced?

a) A shoe
b) Raw chicken
c) A human life
d) MMC's secret collection of Barry Manilow CD's

I'll give you a hint, only one answer is correct.

[Mainecoons]

Yes but c) can lead to d) and maybe that is an argument FOR abortion.

:grin:

[Agravan]

I didn't make the claim that life begins at conception. You did.


Now prove it.

You claimed there was scientific proof against it, show me your science.

[Mainecoons]

You all aren't going to prove this argument either way. Futile!

[WalterSobchak]

You all aren't going to prove this argument either way. Futile!


Exactly.

[Agravan]

But you've already said it was proven:

Science has already proven you wrong. I was just trying to give you a fighting chance.

So now the burden of backing up your claim is on you. Show us the science or admit you pulled this out of your ass to try to win an argument.

[WalterSobchak]

But you've already said it was proven:


So now the burden of backing up your claim is on you. Show us the science or admit you pulled this out of your ass to try to win an argument.


There is no argument to win. You want to ban abortion. I do not.

[Jack Fate]

There is no argument to win. You want to ban abortion. I do not.

Are you okay with late-term abortions?

[WalterSobchak]

Are you okay with late-term abortions?



No. Unless my wife's life depended on it. Then, yes.

[Agravan]

There is no argument to win. You want to ban abortion. I do not.

Yes there is: when does life start. I sat conception, you say science has proven it doesn't.
I say, show the science f it exists.
But you can't because you pulled that statement out of your ass.

By the way, I don't want to ban abortions, I want to stop the murder of innocent children. You want to continue the slaughter.

[WalterSobchak]

Yes there is: when does life start. I sat conception, you say science has proven it doesn't.
I say, show the science f it exists.
But you can't because you pulled that statement out of your ass.

By the way, I don't want to ban abortions, I want to stop the murder of innocent children. You want to continue the slaughter.


Please explain, how me supporting a non ban on abortion means I want to slaughter children.

[Captain Obvious]

Supporting a "non-ban" on abortion is supporting abortion.

Supporting abortion is supporting the slaughter of innocent, unborn children.

Pretty easy when you connect all of the dots.

[WalterSobchak]

Supporting a "non-ban" on abortion is supporting abortion.

Supporting abortion is supporting the slaughter of innocent, unborn children.

Pretty easy when you connect all of the dots.


Ok, I support the slaughter of babies when a Woman is raped or her health is at risk.

Banning abortion tells those women, tough shit. I do not support that.

[roadmaster]

Ok, I support the slaughter of babies when a Woman is raped or her health is at risk.

Banning abortion tells those women, tough shit. I do not support that.

When a woman is raped does she have to carry the sins of others? That should be her decision and no one else. If her life is in danger that also should be hers. What I don't support is reckless people who have abortions like changing shirts. I do not believe in completely banning abortion. Too many women use this as birth control.

[WalterSobchak]

When a woman is raped does she have to carry the sins of others? That should be her decision and no one else. If her life is in danger that also should be hers. What I don't support is reckless people who have abortions like changing shirts. I do not believe in completely banning abortion. Too many women use this as birth control.


I agree with the same. I stated that last night as well. As a form of birth control, I am very much against it. But I do not support a total ban.

But other then total ban, how does one solve the issue with abortion as a method of birth control?

[roadmaster]

I agree with the same. I stated that last night as well. As a form of birth control, I am very much against it. But I do not support a total ban.

But other then total ban, how does one solve the issue with abortion as a method of birth control?

How would one feel if their 12 year old young women was brutally raped by a mad man and tell the child she must carry the child? I don't know how to solve the problems of many that use it as birth control. Many don't see them as children and lack morals. All of us can only try to explain to the youth what they are doing is wrong.

[Captain Obvious]

Ok, I support the slaughter of babies when a Woman is raped or her health is at risk.

Banning abortion tells those women, tough shit. I do not support that.

You're adding an element to the topic that was not present in the post that I replied to.