Happy 40th anniversary Roe v. Wade!

Killing babies is not the answer either.

Here is an idea....maybe those who think killing a baby is an easy way out of a mess, maybe they should stop having sex. If people (women) want sole control over their bodies and reproduction, this would be the ultimate in control...


But you're not judging....
 
Not judging. People do whatever they want. Only offering the idea that if abortion is seen as their only way out...perhaps wait to have sex.

Or perhaps offer alternatives, access to natal care, provide sex education that focuses on birth control and not just abstience, and provide birth control services cheaply if not free

it's working up here in Canuckistan


but hey, that makes sense... why bother doing the right thing when you can legislate morality
 
Not judging. People do whatever they want. Only offering the idea that if abortion is seen as their only way out...perhaps wait to have sex.


By calling them "baby killers", you are judging.

And you are also wrong, because your Government decided 40 years ago that what's being removed is not a baby and is not alive.

And unless you are passing out Time Machines at the clinic you are "working" at, offering the suggestion that not having sex is an alternative to abortion is a bit uh...psycho, don't you think?
 
Etopics would require surgery...and the baby will not survive. If a woman has a pregnancy which endangers her life, that is already allowed...(as is rape).

I do not condem anyone. Killing innocent babies as a way to deal with consequences of sex is not a solution either. There are thousands of couples who are praying for the chance to be a parent....guaranteed they would be thrilled to have a child someone else did not want.

Not one single baby has ever been aborted. Please get your scientific terminology straightened out so that you can sit at the adult's table and discuss things.
 
By calling them "baby killers", you are judging.

And you are also wrong, because your Government decided 40 years ago that what's being removed is not a baby and is not alive.

And unless you are passing out Time Machines at the clinic you are "working" at, offering the suggestion that not having sex is an alternative to abortion is a bit uh...psycho, don't you think?

You can see the heart beating at about 6 weeks. The baby cannot live by itself yet, but it is definitely living.

Not all who come in are positive. Those, in particular, have a chance to make different choices. Those who are positive, can choose to not be there again, if they wish to.

My Government has been known to be wrong before...as has yours.

.....and, not judging. Saying what they are doing is not judgement...it is just a statement of fact.
 
Or perhaps offer alternatives, access to natal care, provide sex education that focuses on birth control and not just abstience, and provide birth control services cheaply if not free

it's working up here in Canuckistan


but hey, that makes sense... why bother doing the right thing when you can legislate morality

tumblr_mdgt24tAoO1r1p36d.gif


tumblr_m9wofiCO961qa6g1m.gif


tumblr_mcty86dhit1qcee2y.gif


tumblr_m6h84mAoMS1rwcc6bo1_500.gif
 
Killing babies is not the answer either.

Here is an idea....maybe those who think killing a baby is an easy way out of a mess, maybe they should stop having sex. If people (women) want sole control over their bodies and reproduction, this would be the ultimate in control...

Do you regard the word "acorn" as a synonym for "oak tree'? Hmmm?

And if so, if your kids took a pocketful of acorns from a National Forest, wouldn't they be guilty of illegal logging?
 
Do you regard the word "acorn" as a synonym for "oak tree'? Hmmm?

And if so, if your kids took a pocketful of acorns from a National Forest, wouldn't they be guilty of illegal logging?

Babies have much more value than a tree...oak or anything else. That statement is just silly.
 
Babies have much more value than a tree...oak or anything else. That statement is just silly.

Ha...The king of yelling false equivalency, posting a false equivalency. Priceless. One of these day I hope he learns what one is.....

But do not get me wrong. I am still for sucking as many of those things out as possible.
 
Babies have much more value than a tree...oak or anything else. That statement is just silly.

"much more value" is your subjective judgment.

I cannot say I'm surprised that you fall back on trite bumper sticker philosophy when logically boxed in.
 
Ha...The king of yelling false equivalency, posting a false equivalency. Priceless. One of these day I hope he learns what one is.....

But do not get me wrong. I am still for sucking as many of those things out as possible.

Ishspawn, fetus::human to acorn::eek:ak tree is most definitely not a "false equivalancy", despite the fact that you reallly really want it to be one.

A fetus is a potential human
An acorn is a potential oak tree.

It's a valid comparison.
 
Ishspawn, fetus::human to acorn::eek:ak tree is most definitely not a "false equivalancy", despite the fact that you reallly really want it to be one.

A fetus is a potential human
An acorn is a potential oak tree.

It's a valid comparison.

....only for those who believe anything on this earth is greater than that of a human life.
 
Ishspawn, fetus::human to acorn::eek:ak tree is most definitely not a "false equivalancy", despite the fact that you reallly really want it to be one.

A fetus is a potential human
An acorn is a potential oak tree.

It's a valid comparison.

Ha!

Egg to chicken fat boy. Just think KFC.
 
Not according to the scientific nor the legal community.....

You can call it a pink unicorn shitting skittles, if it's inside mom it's a zygote/fetus...not a baby till it's out of mom.

Ask a woman who is pregnant...bet she calls it a baby. :)
 
Back
Top