"iTS THE 1ST aMENDMENT STUPID".

  • Thread starter Thread starter shar-vell Dan
  • Start date Start date
Floyd Eye said:
I agree.

Fun fact. My sister in law adopted her nephew’s baby. Guess how much it cost her to adopt her grand nephew ? About 20k. And that wasn’t paying the birth parents anything. And it doesn’t include the medical bills. How’s that for math ? Something’s definitely fucked up with that.

And really I agree with you but there’s a lot of other factors involved.
Click to expand...
That's fair man, I get it. I run in a lot of circles with folks who have adopted and it does indeed cost more than it should. The system needs to be reformed. Good 'ole Uncle Sam robbing good people of their cash.

Having said that, I know several who have gotten it done for a little over $10k, still not cheap, but when one considers the financial weight of properly caring for a child, that sum should be required and or able to be achieved by one seeking to care for a child. In other words, if you can't come up with $10k I could understand how an agency might have reservations. How is it that 65% of Americans carry automobile loans (and or bought a car) but couldn't come up with $10k for a child?

Having said that, you're correct, there are a lot of factors with this, however the termination of a human life created in the image of God is NEVER an option and shouldn't be.
 
I
voodooradio1 said:
As usual, you are too retarded to understand what is actually going on.They want it taken down because it is a blatant lie, not because they want to suppress freedom of speech. The day after the ban took effect ,Florida added a clarification to the ban, though all anyone needed to do was read Floridas Hearbeat law in order to understand that in cases where a fetus is a threat to the mothers life, the ban doesn’t apply. Also doesn’t apply in cases of rape or incest.( Do you know what that word means, champ? I’m sure you have heard it used when folks whisper about your mom and Uncle Daddy.)
Lefty chics are promiscuous slush pies for the most part, and they are mad that they can’t use abortion as a means of birth control. Has nothing to do with women’s health, because no way having and abortion is a healthy choice. Personally I’m fine with a federal level exception that allows the left to abort their children up to the 90 year mark, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not in agreement with the "federal level exception" you mention here, however you made some really good points here. The vast, vast majority of abortions are done for the sole purpose of birth control / an unencumbered future. The liberals arguing for freedom of abortion and claiming it's "health care" is just a guise. It's no different than them using the word "fetus" (which means offspring btw) or constantly arguing from minuscule exceptions (rape and incest - less than 2% of abortions).

Call it acetaminophen all you want, we all know it's tylenol. We know what they are doing and you are absolutely right, they simply desire autonomous sexual freedom with zero consequences.
 
^What if in having that child the mother is going to die? Or if the child will be so mentally or physically deformed that its existence on Earth would actually be far more miserable to it and the parents, and not to mention more costly? The mother can move on and try again. Some animals in the animal kingdom actually kill any of their young that is a detriment to the family group? If a mother bobcat deems that one of her cubs is constantly crying and can't walk, does she risk her entire family being eaten by wolves? Survival of the fittest.

MontiCristo said:
yessir, wasn't pointed towards you brother, I was commenting on @Bloodrock's diatribe and clear hatred for Christianity. Not sure why he even brought it up, but He did.
Click to expand...
I was wondering who you were talking about specifically as it appeared to me that you and @Floyd Eye were essentially saying the same thing. Maybe use the @ feature or quotes or just type their name :dunno: You obviously do not have a problem with being direct. :lol:
 
MontiCristo said:
I

I'm obviously not in agreement with the "federal level exception" you mention here, however you made some really good points here. The vast, vast majority of abortions are done for the sole purpose of birth control / an unencumbered future. The liberals arguing for freedom of abortion and claiming it's "health care" is just a guise. It's no different than them using the word "fetus" (which means offspring btw) or constantly arguing from minuscule exceptions (rape and incest - less than 2% of abortions).

Call it acetaminophen all you want, we all know it's tylenol. We know what they are doing and you are absolutely right, they simply desire autonomous sexual freedom with zero consequences.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. It is not birth control and I don't want my taxes paying for widespread birth control or rather a "day after option".

I am in favor of letting the individual States figure it out. Don't like the law in your State? Move. Keep the Federal Government out of it.
 
il_570xN.1683790628_50l9.jpg
 
311splawndude said:
^What if in having that child the mother is going to die? Or if the child will be so mentally or physically deformed that its existence on Earth would actually be far more miserable to it and the parents, and not to mention more costly? The mother can move on and try again. Some animals in the animal kingdom actually kill any of their young that is a detriment to the family group? If a mother bobcat deems that one of her cubs is constantly crying and can't walk, does she risk her entire family being eaten by wolves? Survival of the fittest.


I was wondering who you were talking about specifically as it appeared to me that you and @Floyd Eye were essentially saying the same thing. Maybe use the @ feature or quotes or just type their name :dunno: You obviously do not have a problem with being direct. :lol:
Click to expand...
In response to your question about the mothers life being at risk (extremely, extremely rare = 0.003 % and in that case a decision is going to have to be made by the Father, Husband, guardian etc... Because one life is going to have to be taken. It's apparent from the continuation of your response that you are in support of whatever the state / mass decides. One has to wonder if you were in support of slavery during those times because the states had decided that was ok. Do you have a moral position on slavery being wrong in the southern states in 1892, or was it ok because the state / people thought it was?

Not going to respond on the animal analogy - we aren't bobcats, we are humans.

with regard to physical deformation - It is God who makes man what he is. Exodus 4:11 11 Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top