Dear pro-lifers: Unwanted pregnancies aren't just the woman's fault (Page 3)

[TsubasaCorrupted]

They won't actually read this except maybe to nit-pick. They don't want to hear truth, only their casuis beliefs.

[VIVANT]

+1 for using casuistry 😊😊

Is English your first language?

[TsubasaCorrupted]

Thank you :) I try.
Second, but not by much.

[akihon]

So your ignoring the fact that in the cases where a woman has said to a man she doesn't want to get pregnant so is on birth control just to get pregnant, or that a man has been told he's going to be a father and has no say in the matter, you know I appreciate that these are your opinions and that's fine but if your going to have an opinion at least take the time to time understand the grey areas and form it from the facts not from hearsay or a friend.

[Benedek38]

That's really funny, because I posted a question a while ago, asking if men should have the right to financial abortions.

Most female commenters said that no, men have to raise the child or pay the price of being an idiot, because they elected to bear the responsibility of a child by having sex (protected or unprotected).
Most of these commenters were pro choice.

So apparently women DO hold both parties accountable. Even pro choice women hold men accountable.

[goaded]

There is a difference between giving up part of your pay for the next 20 years and giving up most of your freedom for the same period of time.

[Benedek38]

@goaded That's a strange way to put it.
1) Why is a child equal to giving up your life?
2) Not paying child support (maybe because you are broke) can actually get you in jail. So I think child support limits your freedom more.
3) If a man wants to have a family, just not then and there, then that man has to pay chikd support AND raise a child in addition to that.

[goaded]

1, It's not, it's giving up most of your personal freedom, like I said. You have to be there for them.
2. You only lose your freedom if you don't make the payments, you look after your children whatever happens.
3. Yes, deal with it.

[Benedek38]

@goaded in other words, you disregard issues men face, and emphasize issues women face. Are you a baby boomer by any chance?

[goaded]

I'm someone who's stayed at home looking after children most of your life. I can't imagine being such a dickhead as to not care about children you've fathered, and think they should look after them or deserve all they get.

[goaded]

I'm someone who's stayed at home looking after children most of your life. I can't imagine being such a dickhead as to not care about children you've fathered, and *I* think they should look after them or deserve all they get.

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Unless the man is ballin financially, he loses freedom for the same period of time through working extra hours to pay for that child. That is if we're going to equate having a child to giving up your freedom. I know people who do it well and are still pursuing their dreams, because the parents work together. That's not everyone, but yes. It's not a simple, "the woman gives up all her freedom to raise her child".

[goaded]

@rjroy3 Again, I didn't say "all your freedom", and the amount of time spend on raising a child (especially in the early years, when it's 24 hours a day), is much greater than the extra hours worked to pay child support.

[rjroy3]

@goaded never claimed you made an absolute all or nothing claim. Even going by that logic it doesn't work, because children become more expensive overtime while 24 hour assistance is only in the first year or so, which is usually split duty anyways. I've yet to meet the parent who exclusively was the one to help their child unless the other was dead or in military service

[Dionigi]

@Benedek38
You should clarify what you really think about women.
That you don't give a shit about them.

[Benedek38]

@Dionigi
Poisoning the well fallacy.

[goaded]

1. You did it twice: "Why is a child equal to giving up your life?", "the woman gives up all her freedom".
2. We're specifically talking about people who have to pay child support, and they're the ones who are not sharing in the raising of the child.

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Parents paying child support often are helping in the raising of the child.

[smg99]

It’s also really f*** dumb to not use morning after pill. at least 72 hours after you have the inclination something was not right. That gut instinct is your mind’s ability or memory let’s say conscientious thought processes.

If someone is devoid of that then really ought not to have passionate unprotected sex to begin with isn’t it?

[Guanfei]

You forgot 2 things:

- A man has no say on an abortion. Whether he wants the baby or not, the decision is left to the woman only. He can't force her to keep it or abort it.
- It's way easier for a woman to notice if a guy doesn't have a protection than for a man to know if the girl takes the pill. A girl can lie about it, while, obviously, it's quite hard to pretend you have a condom if you don't.

[liburnia]

It's all woman's fault (unless she was raped and it's totally different story). No one can make me pregnant if I don't consent to have sex with him, that's for first. And second, the first thing my mama told me when I reached certain age was : "No one will protect you if you don't protect yourself.

[mistixs]

And a man can't impregnate someone if he didn't consent to have sex with her.

[liburnia]

@mistixs ok, he didn't consent. She is pregnant and now what? It's again her fault. I don, t see how the situation has changed?

[mistixs]

He DID consent though. So it's equally his responsibility

[liburnia]

@mistixs No it isn't. If I don't want to stay pregnant, I'm either not going to have sex in the first place. Or if I decide to fuck I'm goint to use protection. I won't leave it to him to take care that I don't stay pregnant

[mistixs]

And if he doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, then he can either not have sex, or use protection.

If the law can guarantee equal rights for fathers, it can guarantee equal responsibility.

[goaded]

[rjroy3]

Shallow argument.

What it really says:

"I think in many cases, your marality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child to maintain their right life. But disagree with Government funded food, government funded education and government funded housing. That's not pro-life, that's pro-birth".

The flawed logic is making it about the birth and wrongly associating it with disagreeing with GOVERNMENT FUNDED everything. Like it's not an opposing view to think someone has a right to live and also believe anyone (including that child) doesn't have a right to your money. It's like arguing that you're okay with murdering homeless people, because you're unwilling to house, feed and cloth them yourself. Inherently a stupid argument.

[Servus09]

That's a strawman argument, actually.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 Three quarters of women in the US having an abortion, do it because they "cannot afford a baby now".

"In 2004, [a Guttmacher Institute structured survey] was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. ... The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%)."

[rjroy3]

Assuming you posted on the wrong comment thread lol

[bubble_tea]

@rjroy3 He's explaining why 3/4 of all abortions happen. Because people who "also believe anyone (including that child) doesn't have a right to your money", so there is no funding for single mothers. Being pro-life AND against government funding = Wanting single mothers to become/stay poor and uneducated for a decade OR wanting all single mothers to give up their child for adoption.

[goaded]

@bubble_tea Thank you. I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone trying not to understand.

[goaded]

*not trying to misunderstand

[rjroy3]

@bubble_tea No, it's just misrepresenting the other side as a means to attain a moral highground when your argument is based in an immoral action. You can't really morally justify your side so it's easier to demonize the other side as "not caring" or being unfeeling.

His argument misrepresented the other sides argument. So when he goes into further detail while still misrepresenting the other side as the basis for his later points it doesn't change the fact he misrepresented the other side. That's just basic logical reasoning. Having a second person come in to cosign the flawed logical doesn't make it no logically flawed @goaded I understand. I just disagree and I think you're respectable enough to know when you posted something that just misrepresented a view and attacked it.. aka a strawman argument.

[rjroy3]

Someone who wants to understand will represent the other side in it's strongest form and address that, rather than oversimplifying to the point of no longer being accurate and knocking over the false argument.

[bubble_tea]

@rjroy3 He isn't demonizing all pro-lifers. Sister Joan Chittister is merely saying some of the pro-lifers shouldn't call themselves pro-lifers (because they are against gov funding), but pro-birthers. those who are for birth and gov funding can continue to call themselves pro-lifers.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 If society is going to insist that an unwanted pregnancy has to result in a child, society is at least partly responsible for it.

If you want to reduce abortions, you need better education, affordable and effective birth control, and more support for women who otherwise couldn't afford to keep their children.

[rjroy3]

Your principle argument was "your morality is deeply lacking" if are against abortion, while not also supporting government funded XYZ aspects of society.

Your point wasn't society is at fault for abortion. Your argument was that the other side was fundamentally immoral and you misrepresented the other sides argument to do so.

[rjroy3]

@bubble_tea Be real. That's demonizing the other side. Side note: I'm addressing him from here on. To be fair you're not really providing anything else to the conversation outside of cosigning what he says and i'm not going to go 2v1 with you two. He's someone I have a bit of respect for due to past interactions.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 I don't see where it says government funded, anywhere.

Churches can also provide those services, although I'd rather they stayed out of education. In fact it makes more sense for them to do it, since it's usually churches that are calling for an end to abortion, and that on religious grounds.

A vast majority recognise that, at least early on in the pregnancy, a fetus is not a child.

www.pewforum.org/.../
"Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U. S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (22%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (15%)."

"About six-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (61%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

By contrast, 74% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (67%).

Catholics are somewhat more divided; 51% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 42% say it should be illegal."

I think your last comment was rude, just so you know.

[rjroy3]

"I don't see where it says government funded, anywhere."

That was my initial point. The people who are pro-life, but not for "free" education, welfare and housing. Are not for "government funded" versions of those things, which is what your post left out. It's dishonest to say "You're against babies being fed, educated or housed". The ACTUAL belief is that they don't believe the government should fund that through tax dollars. I know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. But you took a dishonest tactic to mislabel the other sides argument by saying they "don't want" children to be helped and therefore they are only pro birth and not pro life. That's not true and outright dishonest, because you know it's false.

[rjroy3]

You wouldn't appreciate it if I argued that the only reason you're pro abortion is that you hate children. You don't see the value in their lives so you're find with murdering life early on.

Obviously that's not the case, but that argument is no different than you saying being pro-life but not for government funded free shit are morally inept.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 I really don't think it's about where the funding comes from, although government should be less open to abuse than private funding.

By far the most vocal group of Americans arguing against abortion being legal are Evangelical Protestants. Are they funding food, shelter and education for children? (Serious question! They might be, but reading about pastors asking parishioners for $65m for a private jet makes me wonder.)

Even the Catholics, who see it as a sin, are evenly split, and everyone else is at least 2:1 in favour of it being legal, at least some of the time.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../

[rjroy3]

"I really don't think it's about where the funding comes from, although government should be less open to abuse than private funding."

Think about what you said here. Try to use that line of thinking for any individual belief that you have, with someone else telling you "I really don't it's about what you say it's about". Does that make mischaracterizing what they said (lying) okay? You're at best claiming they don't even know why they think/feel what they do. And at worst you're telling them they are outright lying about why they think what they think and that you REALLY KNOW the truth, which is in this case "you don't care about babies being taken care of".

Which goes right back to the first thing I said.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 Let me get this straight. I put up a quote I agree with that doesn't contain the word government, or even society; you say I'm talking about government spending. When I say I don't think that's what she's talking about, and suggest that the people being referred to are probably the most vocal groups against abortion: Evangelical Protestants (and, as it happens, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses), and ask if they pay for food and shelter for needy mothers and their children, you accuse *me* of putting words into *your* mouth?

For the record: My belief is that there is a period of pregnancy where the fetus does not have to be afforded the rights of a born child, because it has not developed enough. I believe that even after that, the child does not have the right to harm the mother, and in extreme circumstances (where a baby would not survive more than a couple of weeks, for example), it's preferable to avoid putting them through a short life of nothing but pain. I believe it is the duty of the medical profession to explain the situation truthfully, but that it is finally the woman's decision.

I also believe that no-one is going to get to 8 months pregnant and abort their healthy fetus on a whim. (And if they want to, a doctors will delay, try to talk her out of it, and, if all else fails, induce labour, not perform an abortion.)

[rjroy3]

"Let me get this straight. I put up a quote I agree with that doesn't contain the word government, or even society; you say I'm talking about government spending. "

I'm saying you either misunderstand the full context of what the quote means and cosign it in ignorance. Or you do know and agree with it. She is alluding to the other sides argument being ultimately not caring about the care of children after birth IF they are both 1. against abortion and 2. against government funded care. Whether you choose to acknowledge this aspect is ultimately on you.

What do you think she means when she says "If all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed"? Honest question. What do you personally think she means in that line of the quote?

"When I say I don't think that's what she's talking about, and suggest that the people being referred to are probably the most vocal groups against abortion"

You're being ignorant to the blatant statement she made. She's associating those who are against government funded "free" shit with being those as she put it "morality is deeply lacking if" they DON'T want what she says conveniently leaving out the fact she means free shit from tax dollars. It's an obvious statement. So you're either willfully ignorant to the blatant statement, just ignorant to the statement and need to be informed. Or you 100% agree and are lying, but I doubt the last one.

[rjroy3]

I'll give you a hint. She's not saying if you're against abortion and PRO starving children, kicking kids out of school and the home.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 As it turns out, she *was* talking about taxes going towards those things, and I still agree with her. But, until just now, I did not know that, and the quote that we both read did *not* mention taxes or government, you did. It was not a case of my "misunderstanding" the context, because I didn't know that was the context.

I've already answered your question, when I told you at least once that my understanding of the quote would cover churches providing what's needed, arguably better than government because they're the ones who are claiming to be representing the "pro-life" side of the argument, rather than (as I would suggest) pro-control and pro-suffering.

There are also other ways a government can make children more affordable, without giving away "free shit", including raising minimum wages, and mandating better employee protections like paid maternity leave and job security.

[rjroy3]

"As it turns out, she *was* talking about taxes going towards those things,"

Obviously.

"and I still agree with her. But, until just now, I did not know that, "

Yet, now that you're 100% clear that's what she was saying. So your following statements are justifying the lying...

"and the quote that we both read did *not* mention taxes or government, you did."

She did not use the word "government funded"... but as you acknowledged already that is what she was referring to.

" It was not a case of my "misunderstanding" the context, because I didn't know that was the context."

If you don't understand the context and thereafter misinterpret what was said because a lack of context... that's quite literally a misunderstanding lol. But even if I just ignore that and say okay.

Then you do acknowledge she was referring to those who disagree with the political policy of tax funded programs giving out free shit and at the same time are anti abortion as "morally lacking". Even tho not clarifying the fact it's about the government funded part and not taking care of children.

Again. Points right back to my first argument. Dishonest and immoral. Looking worse still because you're consigning the deception

[goaded]

@rjroy3 If you're just going to keep calling me a liar, when I explained my reasoning, I'm done.

[America1st]

I'm not getting into this conversation other that to say that if a woman doesn't want the child she helped make, give it up for adoption. There are many couples that are waiting to adopt a baby. If you are foolish enough to get pregnant by accident, at least take responsibility by having the baby and giving it to someone who badly wants a baby. I worked for a number of years with poor women on welfare. To many of them, abortion is a form of birth control. If the Dems were honest, they would admit that the vast majority of abortions are done on minority women, especially blacks. I won't be responding to any who want to argue with me.

[goaded]

@America1st I don't want to argue, I just want to discuss.

Imagine you're a young woman, a month or two pregnant. Nothing is showing, the fetus is, at most, a twitching blob of cells an inch or so long.

Your choice is, spend seven months getting more and more uncomfortable, being unable to work towards the end, and eventually giving birth to a baby that you don't want (or can't afford to keep), or to take a pill and have an exceptionally heavy period and get on with your life.

Which would you choose? Would everyone?

[rjroy3]

I didn't call you a liar one time. I claimed what she said, which is a dishonest claim. You're either choosing to be ignorant to the truth or you cosign that lie. You've since said, now that you're illuminated to what she really meant that you still agree. If she lied and you agree with the lie she presented. That's on you then. Because she's misrepresenting a view point actively. If you're okay with that, then you're fine with cosigning her lie. It doesn't matter what justification you personally have for cosigning her lie. It's still a lie.

[rjroy3]

Like I outright broke down 1. What she said 2. What she meant 3. Why it's factually incorrect and intentionally misleading.

Then you back checked what I said and proved to yourself that I was right about 1. What she said 2. What she meant. Then decided to harp on the semantics of the fact that she didn't use the words "government". It doesn't matter that she didn't use that word. That's what she was talking about (as you said) and she was using it intentionally to mislead. So as I said. I never called you a liar. She's lying, but you're okay with that. You're okay with her lie and spreading that misrepresentation to the world. And you're aware of that now. *shrugs* Not much else to say about it.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 How can anything I say later be "justifying the lying", if you're not saying I was lying? Or are you saying she was lying? The quote I posted was a part of what she said. I doubt it was her that shortened the quote, in which case she wasn't lying. I agree with both the full quote, and with the shortened quote that could easily apply to evangelical protestants who buy nice churches and aeroplanes instead of homes for struggling mothers.

Exactly who is it you're saying was lying?

[America1st]

If you don't take precautions to not get pregnant, you should pay the consequences you knew existed before you had unsafe sex. An adult has to take responsibility for decisions they make. Abortion is killing a live baby. We live in a society that charges you with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman. If it's nothing but a blob of cells, why would you have to pay a price for murdering it? We now have Democrats making laws that think it's okay to kill the baby AFTER it is born! It's really sick that their first thought is to kill it rather than to give it up for adoption.

[rjroy3]

I've been infinitely clear that she's been dishonest.
You agree with the lie, even tho you know she's being dishonest. You cosign her lie. *shrugs*

[goaded]

OK, that overlapped.

I would say that "intentionally misleading" is the same as lying, and that's what you were accusing me of, weren't you?

Secondly, she was not lying, she was expressing an opinion: "I think, in many cases...".

[rjroy3]

Misrepresenting the otherside, Labeling those who disagree with government funded free shit as people who don't want children "fed, educated and housed" is dishonest and there's no way around that Goaded. You're wrong here and you know that. Just stop. That's intentionally misleading and you know it's intentionally misleading. You may even agree with her that people who are against government funded free shit, "just don't care" but that doesn't mean it's true especially when the basis of the argument is being against government funding and the churches are donating millions to charities year round all over the world. Do you have any idea how much man hours and money are spent on helping the poor, feeding and clothing children all over the world? Just from those in churches? A Fuck ton. They do care. You can try to make an argument to say they don't care. But to just label that side as uncaring on the basis of disagreeing politically is at best misguided/ignorant and at worst a lie. It's dishonest.

[goaded]

@America1st All sex is unsafe, in that regard, no contraceptive method is 100% safe.

Abortion is killing something that otherwise may become a baby. Your homicide laws presume the fetus was wanted (which is reasonable), not that a baby would definitely have been born.

"We now have Democrats making laws that think it's okay to kill the baby AFTER it is born!"
That is completely false.

[rjroy3]

That's why you bounced back and forth between saying "I don't think that's what she was talking about". Because it's pretty damn straightforward.

[rjroy3]

Simplest way of saying it.

It's a lie. She may believe the lie. You may agree with the lie. It's still a lie and promoting it on the basis of nothing more than what you feel is being dishonest.

It's , like if you were to see two guys and one man punched the other in the face. If you just said, "He punched him because he's schizophrenic." You can believe that deep into your core. If it's not true, it doesn't matter if you believe it deep down. It's still not true. It's based on nothing and going around telling people that man is schizophrenic is being dishonest, because you don't know that. There's no evidence of that. Worse. If someone comes to find out you just claimed he's schizophrenic without having any evidence at all and they just decide to agree with you. They are now cosigning the dishonesty.

In her case she's consciously lying as a form of emotional manipulation. In the context of this matter you're just the guy walking past cosigning her claim she made with zero evidence. It's dishonest. I'm not going back with you any further on this. You're wrong. You know you're wrong and there's just no defense for it even if you think she believes the lie. It's a lie end of story.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 And that's your opinion.

[America1st]

This is why I don't want to do this. Do you really think you need to tell me that a condom or birth control pills aren't 100% sure? The fact that a condom is 99% sure and birth control pills are higher than that is why people use them to not get pregnant. I've seen statistics that say there have been 50-60 million abortions in America since it has been legal. Very few are because of a bad condom or misuse of BC pills.

The laws do not depend on whether the woman was going to keep the baby or not. I don't know where you got that from. It's living and dies with the mother.

What I should have said was "We now have Democrats talking about making laws that say it's okay to kill the baby AFTER it is born"! What decent person even thinks that let alone says it. Also the Democrats are okay with Planned Parenthood selling body parts! No decent person would be okay with that, but the Dems think it's great. That is a fact.

[rjroy3]

More basis for my opinion than yours. Yours is an appeal to belief fallacy.
"she believes it so it must be true"/"can't be dishonest/can't be a lie".
Logically she can be correct or incorrect. Promoting something with zero evidence is dishonest. That's basic logic. Your stance wouldn't hold up in a basic level debate class.

[goaded]

@rjroy3 It is absolutely true that that was her, and is my, opinion. You can disagree with it all you like, but it doesn't make it a lie.

I would say the same about praying for people in need; it doesn't help them, it just helps you.

[ForteExe]

I think you're conflating two things. Pro lifers are against abortions, regardless of whose fault it is. It seems like you've got an issue with people solely blaming the woman, and frankly I don't think that's the right mindset either. That's an entirely different topic from abortion though, and you should probably keep the two separate if you hope to be productive here.

[AD240pCharlie]

I am for abortions being legal, but the main reason has to do with safety rather than any other reason. Making abortions illegal won't stop women from getting one, the methods will just be a lot more dangerous.
As long as it's not funded by tax money and they pay for the abortion themselves, I'm all for it. I don't want an innocent kid being brought up by parents who didn't want them.

[AynonOMouse]

The thiing that makes her a bad person is that the man gets no rights. If she doesn't want it she could have it and sign over all parental rights so the man could still have it. The way things are now, the man has no parental rights.
Until that is changed and women stop being very sexist against men then the woman shouldn't have any rights either.
Either they both get rights or neither of them do. It needs to stop being so sexist against men and their parental rights.

[mistixs]

If the man can force the woman to carry the physical consequences of sex (pregnancy) even if she doesn't want to, then the woman can force the man to carry the financial consequences of sex (paying the medical bills) even if he doesn't want to

[Servus09]

According to the laws in the United States, men are nothing more than sperm donors and have no say on issues like abortion. How many times have you heard, 'It's a woman's body and her choice.' Now you want to dispense that responsibility to men who have no legal authority?

[Servus09]

You shouldn't have killed him. He's just a boy. Poor little feller.

[anuragk033]

Whoever think it's JUST woman's fault then either they are from another world or high on weed😂
It's a mistake they both make and should be responsible for it together and together they'll have to figure out what will be the next step 😊 the people who force it on just one gender can be call cowards who runs away from their responsibilities

[PinkChampagne]

Exactly !!

[bamesjond0069]

Women are the ones who bear most of the consequences so yeah y'all have to be more responsible. If someones driving a train and someones walking on the tracks who is the idiot when they get run over?

Another irresponsible girl. Life doesn't give a fuck about what you think is fair. Grow up. And tbh if this is really a buring issue for you i have to believe you're probably a ho.

[Liam_Hayden]

Except in cases of force every pregnancy is 100% the woman's fault. It is also 100% the man's fault except in cases of artificial insemination or spermjacking. But abortion, again except in cases of force, is 100% her choice. The man legally has no say yet if she does yet is financially responsible if she doesn't. As long as that dynamic exists men have the right to have an opinion on the issue, but the name calling is hypocritical. If she is a hoe so is he.

[boulshyte]

preach🗣personally i think pro lifers/slut shaming/religious freaks r the worst.

[Goodwifie]

I like to call them Anti choicers.

[boulshyte]

thats the truth. im going to start calling them that.

[Anonymous]

As a women who got pregnant from a terrible situation I did keep the baby Because of my religion and beliefs.. i do struggle and I felt many emotions I was scared but I think I made right choice I mean yes I birthed the baby that doesn’t mean we’re forever attached he is his own person he will go on and do things with his own life and I did what I had to do I didn’t end that pregnancy because at that moment I became pregnant it was destiny for that boy to be in the world.. end of story

[goaded]

That's what pro-choice means. You got to choose.

[jacquesvol]

[jacquesvol]

[Piteka5]

That's not true, I never met a pro life person that says it's girls fault, and I recently became pro life myself, there are many ways to take care of a baby without abortion, adoption for one, there are methods to avoid the pregnancy at all, assuming you're doing planned sex, so, most abortions will be unnecessary. I'm particulary against late term ones, the sooner it happens the less it bothers me. But there are other ways

[Celtero]

Women, they have the gifted ability to create life, yet they celebrate and defend death by their own hand rather than fight to protect those most vulnerable and defenseless.

What despicable creatures.

[Stripes99]

I’m pro life and didn’t forget that men are important in the decision. The problem is that pro choice people are screaming that the man should have absolutely no part in the matter because it is the “woman’s body and therefore her choice”.

So if you say as a pro life individual that the man should have some say and should bear some responsibility in the matter you’re still going to be met with argument because it ultimately doesn’t change anything for the pro choice people.