Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

You'd think a right-to-lifer wouldn't confuse "fecal" with "fetal". Your Freudian slip is showing.

Unfortunately you chief of hypocrisy, sometimes, there isn't a difference. Sometimes, in terms of function, there isn't the slightest bit of wiggle room that you can effect. You want there to be no governmental endorsement of abortion; you can then either completely distance yourself from the reality that more indigent children are on the way, or try to actually take care of them.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes we need to pick one good at the sacrifice of another. You've picked yours. It's selfish, totally incompassionate, and shows that you don't actually give a sh*t about children, and by your own words in more quotes than I could count, care about your money and taxes, on principle no less, rather than some actual monetary hardship imposed onto you, above the lives of actual children who you would force into the world without even making the slightest attempt to care for them, but that's not the worst part, and that's not the part that fills me with revulsion and contempt for your very ability to vote.

The worst part is that, in the ultimate hypocrisy of your own values, you don't even try to own it. You meticulously delude yourself into some vision of having compassion and care for every child, the unborn ones even, giving them the chance for life (oh look at me I'm such a @#%^ing philanthropist) as long as you don't ever have to face the consequences of, or take responsibility for, that delusional malice and sexist hate masquerading as "compassion," which you force onto other people everytime you choose to vote. Most of the time I hold a moderate amount of respect for you because of your intellectual honesty, much as I disagree with the principles involved, but not here.

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 10:38am by Pensive

I imagine it will be akin to prohibition.

But then, I'm a "stupid ****" because I am pro-choice, so what do I know?

It takes the sting away a little when you're called a "****" by a guy who pretends to be able to fuck everything with tits within a 50 mile radius.

As long as they're confused enough to respond to a Man-Seeking-Man ad.

Ooooh yeah I've heard about this. The adoption clinics run by right-to-lifers that promise to pamper and take care of pregnant teenagers if they promise to give the baby up for adoption.

Guess what? Those clinics are basically adoption factories for rich, white couples that can't have children or are too cheap to do IVF, but are too prejudiced to adopt a black or asian child (which are, oddly enough, more readily available.) If at any point one of the white mothers decides that she wants to keep her child, she's called a **** and kicked back out on the streets.

I wonder if IVF is going to be covered, for that matter? Thousands of embryos are created and destroyed in the process of just trying to get a couple of viable ones, dozens of more potential babies killed than by a woman who has had one abortion in her life.

A wonderful way to stop women from having unwanted babies is for men sluts like you to stop being promiscuious.

I'm still not seeing where you're getting "****" from the story of a MARRIED women, with a WANTED pregnancy, who unfortunately had a natural miscarriage which needed medical intervention to prevent potentially life-threatening complications.

Are you ever going to address the actual issues brought up by the articles, or are you just going to bloviate and tilt at straw men all day?

Celebrate a free society by forcibly taking away someone's right to reproduce just because their socio-economic status doesn't meet your exacting standards. Yuh-huh. Right.

Varrus believes in his own right to choose, no one elses.

She's not a dude, so you wouldn't be interested.

You're living on the wrong planet if you're still convinced that taxes = theft. You sound pretty unAmerican to me.

Well, if you're telling everyone else where to grouse, care to tell me where I can grouse?