If you don't want a baby, get your tubes tied.

And YOU can't accept the fact that women have LOTS of FUN sex ( without you) and take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy by getting an abortion.....

You hate the idea that women aren't punished for having all the FUN sex by being forced to give birth

 

And what of the unintended consequences of unwanted children? If a person does not want to have a child, what kind of parent do you think that person is going to be? Perhaps a person is mentally or emotionally unstable, and they realize that they would be a terrible parent? What if they can't afford to have a child . . . and on that note, how do you feel about your tax money going to support a child that the parent didn't want to begin with because they knew they couldn't afford it? And sometimes it's the dad who wants the abortion because he does not want or cannot afford to have a child.

Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would act responsibly and there would only be SOME unwanted pregnancies (you can still get pregnant at times even with protection - no protection is 100% and there are always those few cases where women get pregnant while using contraception). Also, some women cannot use a lot of types of BC because of allergies, bad side effects, etc.

This is not an ideal world. Women are going to have sex and get pregnant. Those who realize they are unfit to be parents are right for making the choice to not have the child. I will say that I wish more would consider adoption, but then I don't know what it's like to have to put your child up for adoption after it's born. Must be difficult.

I do agree that in some instances, it is nothing more than a selfish decision, but if a person does not want to be a parent, they are probably not going to make very good parents, and then that results in "thugs" when these kids grow up due to abuse, neglect, etc., and not to mention . . . more welfare recipients.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is, the consequences are usually the burden of the unwanted child.

 

I was just extolling the fact that, even if abortion is taken off the table, women still have other options.

It's not as if pregnancy and abstinence are the only other options besides abortion.

 

Why should any options be off the table? Taking away rights is taking away rights, even if it's done in sneaky, underhanded, sleazy , dishonest little bits like Repub/Conservatives are trying to do..

What if someone wanted sterilization off the table ? (As some doctors do, it's not easy to get a tubal ligation...)

 

That is not true. People who want their babies will still have their babies. Besides, having an abortion IS a consequence. It costs money and then the person has to live with the fact that she aborted her unborn baby. And who are you to enforce "consequences" on people anyway? This is a free country and each individual is free to make their own choices about their lives, regardless of your personal feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, a lot of doctors will not perform such a procedure on a woman in her childbearing years if she has no medical issues. That is because she may change her mind as she ages and sometimes the procedure is not reversible.

 

Adoption? I think adoption is a wonderful idea and I wish more women would consider it, but some people are not going to choose adoption.

Do you know who ends up paying the "consequences?" The innocent child who is unwanted. They are the ones to suffer.

Besides, as has been pointed out, pregnancy comes with its own set of health risks which some people would prefer not to take.

Contraception? It's a great idea. I wish more people would use it, but some people are not going to.

These are just the facts. People are not perfect. Some people are horrible. Some women who get pregnant could be addicted to drugs, homeless, or otherwise destitute.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Now that abortions are supported through ACA, I'm paying for that (*)(*)(*)(*)ing abortion. That's my money, not donated, but stolen, and put to use in a leval program m that allows people do to whatever they want and not pay the consequences, because someone else is paying for it.....
Don't preach to me about consequences, voluntary and willful abortions is still murder

 

No, you would be wrong. The policies regarding abortion have not changed. The Hyde amendment remains in place. The only thing that has changed is that military women can now have an abortion due to rape, incest or threat to her life, which was not the case before.

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/coverage-for-abortion-services-and-the-aca/

 

It's appropriate that you prefaced your post with "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)." The ACA birth control mandate does not cover abortions.

 

Abortion on demand and at your expense
http://www.statepress.com/2015/03/04/abortion-on-demand-and-at-your-expense/

again, we ARE paying for abortions for another's *ahem* indiscretion

and as far as the Hyde Amendment that only covers support for abortion resulting in rape incest, etc. not "every day screwing around I want sex three times today" pregnancy
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill18.pdf

Obamacare State Exchanges May Fund 111,500 Abortions a Year With Your Money http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/26/...ns-of-thousands-of-abortions-with-your-money/

righttttttttt, taxpayers really are paying for abortions.

 

Statepress and lifenews are Anti-Choice, Anti-Obama ....

And you just posted , ""Hyde Amendment that only covers support for abortion resulting in rape incest, etc. """

Glad you know that.

I'm glad anyone anywhere pays for abortions....it's so much cheaper than paying for Welfare....

And American taxpayers subsidize the wealthy which is much more painful to DECENT people than subsidizing medical procedures for those who can't afford the procedure or the child

 

and it's cheaper to keep their legs closed.

 

From your own link:

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act maintains the status quo on abortion policy and does not shift federal abortion policy in either a pro-life or pro-choice direction. The following provisions will ensure that the bill does nothing to restrict or expand existing abortion law, while ensuring that federal funds cannot be used for abortion coverage or care."

 

LOL! When rabid Anti-Choicers have their back to the wall it always comes down to "the dirty pig should've kept her legs together and she didn't so now she has to be punished""

So predictable...


So ineffective...

So pathetic...

 

It ALWAYS comes to this eventually. And then they try to claim they don't want to control women.

 

And some women since time itself have used babies to control men.....go figure.

 

Go figure what?

That has nothing to do with the topic.

And that doesn't make controlling women by forcing them to give birth right.

AND forcing women to give birth gives them the baby that you accuse them of using to control men.....so it's the Anti-Choicers you have a beef with....go figure...

 

when abortion shows up as part of my plan and it's going into a "general" fund, then I am paying for abortions. I am paying for services that I will never use.

- - - Updated - - -

sex without consequences is pathetic.

 

Blah bah blah....

Enough drama queen. Women have so many choices today that no one controls them. If they are being controlled or owned in today's society it is more than likely mental issues or abuse come into play.

Forcing birth......oh yes, millions of babies daily in some secret woman factory controlled by men. Tell me more about this secret uterus project?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388189/obamacares-taxpayer-funded-abortions-carl-anderson
..and you trust this government to be honest..... that, in itself is a joke.....

 

Well, at least you're consistent...another ridiculous post having no basis in reality.....I never said women are controlled NOW. It's what Anti-Choicers WANT to do....can you see the difference?

The Anti-Choicers want to force women to have the babies that YOU are complaining about

 

I certainly don't trust YOU

Now , could you possibly address the post of mine you quoted ???

"""""""""Statepress and lifenews are Anti-Choice, Anti-Obama ....

And you just posted , ""Hyde Amendment that only covers support for abortion resulting in rape incest, etc. """

Glad you know that.

I'm glad anyone anywhere pays for abortions....it's so much cheaper than paying for Welfare....

And American taxpayers subsidize the wealthy which is much more painful to DECENT people than subsidizing medical procedures for those who can't afford the procedure or the child """""""

- - - Updated - - -

But it's LOTSA FUN!!!

(that old green-eyed monster makes people say funny things ....

 

I am not anti choice. If you want to take a ice cream scooper or a vacuum hose to your uterus 20 times a day go for it.

I am anti drama if one was to ask....

 

If that happens, your plan is not in compliance with the law.

It's pathetic that you think women should be punished for having sex.

 

YOU contended that women USE babies to control men.

I pointed out that your Anti-Choice friends are the ones you should aim your righteous anger at since they are the ones who want to force women to have those babies that YOU say control men....


Your "women control men" thingy backfired on you ...