Bush Appoints AntiAbortion Doc to Head Pregnancy Office

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

bush is an arrogant jerk off. The fact that he's a republican president has nothing to do with it. He'd be an arrogant jerk off no mater his political views, occupation, or religious beliefs.

If he were an ordinary guy who hung out in bars he would probably spend a great deal of time getting the **** kicked out of him by the same rednecks who now embrace him, simply because he's an arrogant jerk off.

Who did you vote for in 2004? If I were a betting man, I'd bet big that it was John Kerry. You lose your right forever to call anyone arrogant once you've voted for Kerry. Have you any concept of how arrogant John Kerry is? Bush is about the humblest person alive next to Mr. Wife Is A Billionare.

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Adoption? In Tx we even have places that unwanted babies can be dropped off literally on the doorstep, no questions asked.
What would you suggest?
Accepting responsibility is what it's called.

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Adoption? In Tx we even have places that unwanted babies can be dropped off literally on the doorstep, no questions asked.
What would you suggest?
Accepting responsibility is what it's called.

<snort>

I was totally waiting for that.

Exactly how is putting your child up for adoption taking responsiblity for your actions?

People who think adoption is the answer to everything have absolutely no idea of what adoption entails.

Belive me, I know more about door step babies than 99.9% of the population.

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Sorry but that is one of the typical lib arguments for abortion if I ever heard one.

Gee, let's see, we keep the incoming child if Henry gets the promotion, but we kill the unborn child if the price of oil reaches $75.00/barrel because having a child may cause financial hardship.

Can any proposition be more disgusting than that?

Monte Cargo wrote:

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Sorry but that is one of the typical lib arguments for abortion if I ever heard one.

Gee, let's see, we keep the incoming child if Henry gets the promotion, but we kill the unborn child if the price of oil reaches $75.00/barrel because having a child may cause financial hardship.

Can any proposition be more disgusting than that?

Thank you for that totally unexaggerated and perfectly accurate picture of the average parents discussing their options, Mr. Limbaugh.

kickycan wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Sorry but that is one of the typical lib arguments for abortion if I ever heard one.

Gee, let's see, we keep the incoming child if Henry gets the promotion, but we kill the unborn child if the price of oil reaches $75.00/barrel because having a child may cause financial hardship.

Can any proposition be more disgusting than that?

Thank you for that totally unexaggerated and perfectly accurate picture of the average parents discussing their options, Mr. Limbaugh.

It's impossible to set an example that would be exagerated or inaccurate, because to the conditioned mindset, owing to the pro-aborts, such an example simply does not exist.

This is, of course, a matter of separation of church and state. Keep in mind that religion is the root of (almost) all evil.

If one looks back in history, one will find massive persecution and murder in the name of religion. Moreover, many came to this country because of the evils connected with state-supported religion. In England, , for example, all had to contribute to the church, regardless of one's beliefs.

No. The question is - if people who are old enough to have sex are old enough to accept the consequences what should be done when they find they cannot care for the child?

This isn't just about teenagers having babies, they are not the only ones that have abortions and use contraceptives, and it is certainly not about money exclusive to anything else.

As to the door-step kids, most of them will spend their life in foster care, receiving a pat on the head and a hearty "good luck" on their 18th birthday.

So, people who find they can no longer care for their child should accept responsiblity by letting the state care for their child instead?

If they are old enough to accept the consequences shouldn't we force them to raise their own children?

Monte Cargo wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Monte Cargo wrote:

boomerang wrote:

What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Sorry but that is one of the typical lib arguments for abortion if I ever heard one.

Gee, let's see, we keep the incoming child if Henry gets the promotion, but we kill the unborn child if the price of oil reaches $75.00/barrel because having a child may cause financial hardship.

Can any proposition be more disgusting than that?

Thank you for that totally unexaggerated and perfectly accurate picture of the average parents discussing their options, Mr. Limbaugh.

It's impossible to set an example that would be exagerated or inaccurate, because to the conditioned mindset, owing to the pro-aborts, such an example simply does not exist.

Yes. Conditioned mindset. Pro-aborts fault. Got it, Mr. Hannity.

No. The question is - if people who are old enough to have sex are old enough to accept the consequences what should be done when they find they cannot care for the child?

This isn't just about teenagers having babies, they are not the only ones that have abortions and use contraceptives, and it is certainly not about money exclusive to anything else.

As to the door-step kids, most of them will spend their life in foster care, receiving a pat on the head and a hearty "good luck" on their 18th birthday.

So, people who find they can no longer care for their child should accept responsiblity by letting the state care for their child instead?

If they are old enough to accept the consequences shouldn't we force them to raise their own children?

As someone recently messaged me
"he/she conjurs up this image of Norman Bates /Tony Perkins dressed as his mother in Pyscho muttering at the keyboard."

Are you willing to vote to have your taxes raised in order to properly care for these children?

Right now, the social services/foster care system is seriously overwhelmed and desperate for funding.