Cool motive still X

Her when she laid down and had sex. She maid a choice and is trying to kill a child to avoid it's repercussions.

What if the condom broke? Or the Pill didn't work? Or god forbid, she was raped?

Shit happens. Killing an innocent human is not an acceptable solution. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What if shit happens and raising a child would ruin the person and the Child's Life?

It's called adoption, then again Liberal democrats have already made that nearly impossible because of their bureaucracy.

True!

1) Maybe the parent finds giving up a child unmoral 2) if 60 Million kkds where given up for Adoption it would overload the System

Is "unmoral" anything like "immoral"?

Yes, I'd assume so. Sorry, I was Thinking of the German word, which is 'Unmoralisch'

Also my condolences on being adopted.

I see.
And no condolences necessary. I grew up with everything my mother could not provide and what privileged, self-interested father was too busy to provide.

Good in you! More power to you.

Giving up the child is "unmoral" as opposed to terminating its life. You're trolling.

Fair point. Real sex education would greatly help. Also, I suspect most children will not be adopted and their mothers will put their narcissism on hold to raise their child. Let's be real, the vast majority of women getting abortions are just prego females that are killing their unborn children so they can continue to be cum dumpsters for their tinder dates. They need to grow the f**k up and a kid may be the only way it's going to happen.

Yup I asked you to provide me the % of abortions from rape. Your words "I don't know". Cmon bro... no honesty now?

Well, unfortunately that is what statistics show. Hey I still see you trying to argue with people about a subject you confessed to me that you knew nothing about, and don't want to educate yourself about either. Guess it is difficult for you to stop yapping.

The vast majority of women getting abortions are single, 18-25 years old, and low income earners. The vast majority of women using tinder are...

Thank you for finally going out and researching the information, so that is speaking for less than 1% of the abortions. So that is how much value people bring to the table when they want to argue abortion and bringing rape to the table, a miserable 1%, the 99% has more voice. We can change the way our society work from a 1%, that is crazy, majority dictates how society evolves and advances.

Something doesn't quite add up....can't quite put my finger on it...(for those of you playing at home, I am being sarcastic)

No. Thats not why you get an abortion. I'd argue that adoption is worse than abortion, as there is no guarantee you'll be adopted and you'll live knowing your real biological parents didn't love you (even if thats not true) and therefore threw you away, the psychological impact that can have is immense and can lead to psychological problems later down the line. Instead, you'd be sparing the Child a subpar life, a life without love and a life full of Hardships.

So, Adoption (LIVING) is worse than abortion (MURDER - taking of innocent life)... hmmm ok..

A very subjective comment with a lot of assumptions made there... I don't know anyone that has had perfect parents, perfect love and a life without hardships...

By your standard, should children with Down's Syndrome be aborted? What about conjoined twins? What about a child born blind or deaf? Or what about the myriad of other complications a child can be born with, should they all be aborted to spar them a "subpar" life?

I'm not sure if you have kids but do you think they would prefer to be alive or dead? Would you prefer to be alive or dead? This is a rhetorical question that you should think about if you do...

"Adoption is worse than abortion"

Yes. In my opinion yes.

" I don't know anyone that has had perfect parents, perfect love and a life without hardships..."

Me neither, but Oprhans have it worse

"By your standard, should children with Down's Syndrome be aborted? What about conjoined twins? What about a child born blind or deaf? Or what about the myriad of other complications a child can be born with, should they all be aborted to spar them a "subpar" life?"

No, not only for that reason

"

Also, 60 million is an absolutely ridiculous number. You are a troll, as if I didn't already know.

60 Million is the number aborted nation wide. Were they all given up to foster care the system would immediately fail and crash, a "move overseas and then go to Mount Everest to Jump off the top" type of crash

What are you talking about? This is not a hard problem. "You just pay for it." Print more money. LOL

No but in all seriousness, it's a sure bet that if there's actually a law against it, people are going to be more careful when it comes to fooling around, and fewer will get pregnant accidentally.

"No but in all seriousness, it's a sure bet that if there's actually a law against it, people are going to be more careful when it comes to fooling around, and fewer will get pregnant accidentally."

I suppose it might be a consequence

I was adopted.

Stop making excuses. It is murder.

Is it tho? You could argue that before a certain point, the Babay has yet to become a babay. Where it lacks important orgams that constitute a Human being. Don't get be wrong, I am against late Term abortions and in no way do I support killing born Children, but perhaps in the early stages when the Baby is not a fully matured babay and it lacks things such as a nervous system or whatever the mother should have the option of being able to abort her Child.

the moment the egg is fertilized by the semen there is a new life. Now, I think there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Often times people choose the wrong way because it is easier, it comes with less cost, and may seem right at that moment when under pressure, but it will lead to the least desirable result. Now I lived with my wife for 8 years, had sex a great amount of time, and only used condoms the first few days of my relationship. Never got her pregnant, because I was careful, and new that we were not ready for parenting. Now, we never drank alcohol, shared partners, and did drugs. We were responsible. Now I have a kid but now I am ready and we intentionally went for it. So it is a matter about responsibility and education. We knew and we were responsible about it, using birth control is a plus that is even available that was not in the equation but is there for other couples. The problem is that other couples when they get pregnant by "accident" most likely there was 1) lack of birth control 2) lack of responsibility, possibly from being drunk or high 3) knowing the consequences. So for those cases, since they are irresponsible to begin with they do not want to accept consequences and see this as the only escape for their mistake. The right action here is to force them to grow up and pay for their mistake so that they do not repeat it and they can be a good example to society so that other couples do not do this. Problem is that by people supporting this abortion they are becoming ENABLERS to this bad behaviors, so that couples in our society thing it is OK to be irresponsible and not think about consequences because they can always get an abortion when they need it. Are you an enabler? Can you point at enablers in this post? Can you call them by what they are, enablers of bad behaviors?

And yet people like you... no wait, that's not fair, as I don't know your views on free speech.

People on the left argue that the government shouldn't have control over a woman's body, yet at the same time argue FOR government control over /everyone's/ body, in the sense that it is the body that produces the very speech that they want the government to control.

They're saying they want the government to take away the right to free speech. It's pretty obvious.

Hate speech laws can be implemented correctly. Germany for example. In Germany you cannot openly preech hate (i.g Some guy says all immigrants are rapists and we should kill them) and Germany still enjoys Freedom of Speech. No one is arrested for speaking out against the Government or any sort of party. But looking at Americas track record, I agree you'd f**k it up big time.

And then you look at the UK, which doesn't have free speech, and where one girl got arrested and charged with hate speech for posting a quote from one of her favorite songs, because it contained the N-word.

The real problem comes down the road, once anti hate speech laws are in place. Who defines what exactly counts as hate speech. For example, what if I told you that calling someone an "alt-right nazi" just because they have different political views from you is hate speech?

(And I don't mean actual neo-nazis, I mean anyone right of center. Hell, sometimes even those left of center but right of the far right. There are far left wingnuts out there who would call Octavia_Melody a far right nazi, and even he recognizes that.)

Some say that claiming a transgender woman is still biologically male is hate speech. When /scientific fact/ becomes hate speech, society's views of what hate speech is has already gone way off the rails.

And let's not forget the arrant hypocrisy of some on the far left who want hate speech made illegal while at the same time spouting "kill all white men/people".

The only speech that is not and should not be protected is incitement to violence, or any speech that can /directly/ lead to others being harmed, such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

"Hell, sometimes even those left of center but right of the far right."

Right of the far /left/, I meant to type.

"And then you look at the UK, which doesn't have free speech, and where one girl got arrested and charged with hate speech for posting a quote from one of her favorite songs, because it contained the N-word."

Britains already on fire, and thank god we arent the Brits, ey? Best learn from their mistakes then.

"Who defines what exactly counts as hate speech."

Supreme Court. Or a specially made Committee 50% Republican 50%Democrat. Easy

"just because they have different political views from you is hate speech?"

Don't include Political parties and Organisations. Or Organisations in General. Only ethnic, cultural and Racial groups

"Some say that claiming a transgender woman is still biologically male is hate speech"

It has been scientifically proven that the brains of Trans people is more aligned with that of the opposite sex. However, just because you call trans people their original gender doesn't make it ahate speech and therefore anyone who says so is stupid

"The only speech that is not and should not be protected is incitement to violence, or any speech that can /directly/ lead to others being harmed,"

Yes

It's good that we agree on some points, but I guess you didn't notice you contradicted yourself there.

Where?

"Where?"

You're saying that the Supreme Court or a committee should define what counts as hate speech, and then agreeing that /only/ speech that incites violence or directly leads to others being harmed should be regulated.

Those two are contradictory. The only reason to define "hate speech" is to regulate it.

Oh lol. Well I retract my previous Statements and say

"The only speech that is not and should not be protected is incitement to violence, or any speech that can /directly/ lead to others being harmed"

Because I have done some more research on the topic and find tjis to be a more agreeable and enforcable ban. Though I am sure both of us have a different definition of 'Direct'

Scientifically proven.. brain is more "aligned"... whatever that means. Needs more pseudoscience to be credible.

There are more Hormones of the opposing sex present in trans brains