Q-baby! Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) You guys love guns. Would you be ok with abortions, if they shot the kids? Seems like a decent compromise? I mean you apparently have no problem with all the other innocent lives lost as being collateral damage. Edited September 5, 2019 by Q-baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 No self-awareness from the Leftists at PP the response is obvious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 Nurse: I Witnessed the Infanticide Ralph Northam Defended. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Wow: The duo who exposed Planned Parenthood are in court and the testimony is horrifying OK, stick with us for a bit while we recap. You, of course, remember the undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the price of baby parts, taken by David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. Way back in July 2015, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who kept a petition defending Planned Parenthood up on her Senate campaign site, opened an investigation into whether the undercover videos violated any laws. She won her campaign and was succeeded by Xavier Becerra. In March 2017, the State of California brought 15 felony charges against Daleiden and Merritt for “the criminal recording of conversations”: that was one felony count for each person filmed without his or her consent, and a 15th count for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy. In June 2017, the San Francisco Superior Court dismissed 14 of the 15 felony charges. However, the judge gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint. And sure enough, a week later, Becerra could refile the charges later — and that’s what he did. OK. Now we missed this last week, but the trial has begun at last, and according to Life Site (the MSM isn’t covering this, of course), some horrifying testimony is coming to light: The CEO of StemExpress essentially admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers. She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.” … On Thursday, the court saw video clips of the StemExpress CEO, identified as Doe 12, meeting in May 2015 with Daleiden and Merritt, who were posing as owners of a biotech company. Doe 12 says in the video there’s a great demand for “raw fetal tissue,” and that the “insanely fragile” neural or brain tissue is best shipped in a “whole calvarium,” or head, whereupon Daleiden says, “Just make sure the eyes are closed.” “Yeah,” laughs Doe 12, “Tell the lab techs it’s coming…it’s almost like they don’t want to know what it is.” (Someone tell Vox’s Aaron Rupar these videos were forensically examined and determined by the court not to have “misleadingly edited.”) More at the link: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 On 8/28/2019 at 9:38 AM, jrober38 said: Do you actually think people are out there in the US killing infants after they've been born? Yeah. Look up neonaticide statistics. Fortunately, there was a significant drop in the US for obvious reasons once Roe vs. Wade became law of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 10 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Yeah. Look up neonaticide statistics. Fortunately, there was a significant drop in the US for obvious reasons once Roe vs. Wade became law of the land. Women have been aborting pregnancies for thousands of years. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop anything, it'll just put more people's health in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 21 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Women have been aborting pregnancies for thousands of years. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop anything, it'll just put more people's health in danger. Duh. The abortion rate and teen pregnancy are at an all time low post Roe v. Wade thanks to education and increased access to contraception. Cutting funding to organizations that provide this like Planned Parenthood makes no sense and in the long run will be a larger burden on the tax payers as there will be more single mothers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 ,.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Duh. The abortion rate and teen pregnancy are at an all time low post Roe v. Wade thanks to education and increased access to contraception. Cutting funding to organizations that provide this like Planned Parenthood makes no sense and in the long run will be a larger burden on the tax payers as there will be more single mothers. Yup. I’m willing to put up with some black market baby parts trading to keep things on the current track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Duh. The abortion rate and teen pregnancy are at an all time low post Roe v. Wade thanks to education and increased access to contraception. Cutting funding to organizations that provide this like Planned Parenthood makes no sense and in the long run will be a larger burden on the tax payers as there will be more single mothers. Hey guys, it's OK to kill babies. Look at how much money it will save us. But what if instead of the babies, we kill women who are most likely to be single mothers? Lower body count over time and you don't have to wait years for a return on your investment. Immediate savings. Dollars today versus dollars tomorrow. I mean if we're ok with killing people for a lower tax burden, let's be as efficient as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, Joe Miner said: Hey guys, it's OK to kill babies. Look at how much money it will save us. But what if instead of the babies, we kill women who are most likely to be single mothers? Lower body count over time and you don't have to wait years for a return on your investment. Immediate savings. Dollars today versus dollars tomorrow. I mean if we're ok with killing people for a lower tax burden, let's be as efficient as possible. Don’t straw man me. I said abortion rates continue to decline because of increased access to contraceptives and education. PP provides that especially in low income areas. Cutting funding to it is counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Don’t straw man me. I said abortion rates continue to decline because of increased access to contraceptives and education. PP provides that especially in low income areas. Cutting funding to it is counterproductive. Where does pp make its money? So what if we have to sacrifice a few kids in order to continue to provide this great service to society. Obviously there's no other way to get women contraceptives except through an organization that's monetary focus is based on killing babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Joe Miner said: Where does pp make its money? So what if we have to sacrifice a few kids in order to continue to provide this great service to society. Obviously there's no other way to get women contraceptives except through an organization that's monetary focus is based on killing babies. I don't mean to be this combative as abortion is a sensitive issue. I actually am against abortion after 20 weeks with the exception of rape or *****. If there was another organization besides pp with the infrastructure in low income areas then I'd be fine with funding them but there isn't. I think all you'd see with defunding planned parenthood is an increase of death among young women due to back alley abortions, higher rates of actual infanticide, and an actual increase in abortion rates because of a lack of access to contraception. They saw an increase in abortion rates in Texas a few years back when they defunded most of planned parenthood there. Edit - Really: In-cest is blocked but rape is fine. Edited September 12, 2019 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 45 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I don't mean to be this combative as abortion is a sensitive issue. I actually am against abortion after 20 weeks with the exception of rape or *****. If there was another organization besides pp with the infrastructure in low income areas then I'd be fine with funding them but there isn't. I think all you'd see with defunding planned parenthood is an increase of death among young women due to back alley abortions, higher rates of actual infanticide, and an actual increase in abortion rates because of a lack of access to contraception. They saw an increase in abortion rates in Texas a few years back when they defunded most of planned parenthood there. Edit - Really: In-cest is blocked but rape is fine. There must be some middle ground other then one extreme or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 8 hours ago, KD in CA said: Yup. I’m willing to put up with some black market baby parts trading to keep things on the current track. Ghoulish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I don't mean to be this combative as abortion is a sensitive issue. I actually am against abortion after 20 weeks with the exception of rape or *****. If there was another organization besides pp with the infrastructure in low income areas then I'd be fine with funding them but there isn't. I think all you'd see with defunding planned parenthood is an increase of death among young women due to back alley abortions, higher rates of actual infanticide, and an actual increase in abortion rates because of a lack of access to contraception. They saw an increase in abortion rates in Texas a few years back when they defunded most of planned parenthood there. Edit - Really: In-cest is blocked but rape is fine. So by funding pp how many babies' lives are you swapping for mothers' lives? In fact it's not really a 1:1 tradeoff. Why can't there be a solution for mothers' lives that doesn't take babies' lives? You've set up a boogieman and anointed pp as the only champion capable of defeating it. Even though you just mentioned education and access to contraceptives having a great effect on lowering abortion rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 I’m honestly not at all morally conflicted over the idea of women who are trying to murder children dying in the process. It’s certainly not the ideal, and preventable death is always tragic; but a woman willing to murder one child will likely be willing to murder more, so at least it puts an end to the cycle. Also, it’s the choices of the woman which led to her demise. Not much different than suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 First City To Use Tax Money To Help Women Get Abortions Is… The answer is Austin, Texas. The first city in the United States to fund ‘logistical services’ for women to get an abortion with tax money is Austin, Texas. The taxpayers’ money will not directly pay for abortions – that would violate state law – so on Tuesday the Austin City Council did a go-around of state law. The city council voted in favor of an item in the 2020 budget that distributes $150,000 to assist low-income women with logistical services in order to help them get abortions. These services include transportation, daycare, travel, and counseling. Since Texas law doesn’t allow abortion clinics to be funded in the state budget, this is how Austin will go around that obstacle. The Austin councilwoman who sponsored the resolution said restrictions on abortion doesn’t represent Texans’ values. That will be news to many Texas women. https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2019/09/12/first-city-use-tax-money-help-women-get-abortions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 12 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I don't mean to be this combative as abortion is a sensitive issue. I actually am against abortion after 20 weeks with the exception of rape or *****. If there was another organization besides pp with the infrastructure in low income areas then I'd be fine with funding them but there isn't. I think all you'd see with defunding planned parenthood is an increase of death among young women due to back alley abortions, higher rates of actual infanticide, and an actual increase in abortion rates because of a lack of access to contraception. They saw an increase in abortion rates in Texas a few years back when they defunded most of planned parenthood there. Edit - Really: In-cest is blocked but rape is fine. I don't understand this thinking at all. Abortion is either murder or it isn't. Abortion rates increased in Texas with the defunding of PP? How does that even make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: I don't understand this thinking at all. Abortion is either murder or it isn't. Abortion rates increased in Texas with the defunding of PP? How does that even make sense? It's not that black and white since there's no clear definition of when life begins. Lack of access to cheap contraceptives leads to a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies causing more women to seek abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I don't mean to be this combative as abortion is a sensitive issue. I actually am against abortion after 20 weeks with the exception of rape or *****. If there was another organization besides pp with the infrastructure in low income areas then I'd be fine with funding them but there isn't. I think all you'd see with defunding planned parenthood is an increase of death among young women due to back alley abortions, higher rates of actual infanticide, and an actual increase in abortion rates because of a lack of access to contraception. They saw an increase in abortion rates in Texas a few years back when they defunded most of planned parenthood there. Edit - Really: In-cest is blocked but rape is fine. I'll reiterate from a couple weeks ago that late term abortions beyond 24 weeks represent 1.3% of all abortions in the US, of which many are performed because the fetus isn't viable due to severe birth defects. Based off of the data available, 50-250 abortions happen each year after 28 weeks. Hardly any of which are actually done in the final weeks of a pregnancy. The right would lead you to believe that number is actually in the thousands. That babies that are 39 weeks along are being aborted in mass when reality is that isn't even remotely the truth. 10 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I’m honestly not at all morally conflicted over the idea of women who are trying to murder children dying in the process. It’s certainly not the ideal, and preventable death is always tragic; but a woman willing to murder one child will likely be willing to murder more, so at least it puts an end to the cycle. Also, it’s the choices of the woman which led to her demise. Not much different than suicide. I'm fairly certain there's zero evidence to support this opinion. Saying it's a woman's choice to get pregnant due to being raped or molested by a family member is a bit much. Edited September 12, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: It's not that black and white since there's no clear definition of when life begins. Lack of access to cheap contraceptives leads to a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies causing more women to seek abortions. Then I would presume that you are making the determination 20 weeks is when life begins unless the kid is a product of rape or *****. 7 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I'll reiterate from a couple weeks ago that late term abortions beyond 24 weeks represent 1.3% of all abortions in the US, of which many are performed because the fetus isn't viable due to severe birth defects. Based off of the data available, 50-250 abortions happen each year after 28 weeks. Hardly any of which are actually done in the final weeks of a pregnancy. The right would lead you to believe that number is actually in the thousands. That babies that are 39 weeks along are being aborted in mass when reality is that isn't even remotely the truth. I'm fairly certain there's zero evidence to support this opinion. Saying it's a woman's choice to get pregnant due to being raped or molested by a family member is a bit much. As usual you post statistics without links. Edited September 12, 2019 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: As usual you post statistics without links. I googled how many late term abortions and this came up as the first link. The data is taken straight from the CDC. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/late_term_abortion_usa.html https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm Based off what I've read, 90% of all abortions are done before 3 months into the pregnancy. 98.7% are done by the 21st week. 50-250 abortions happen per year after 28 weeks with the due date being 39 weeks after conception, meaning you're likely dealing with a handful of situations per year around the 39 week mark. The notion by the right that babies are being aborted in mass in the delivery room couldn't be farther from the truth. Edited September 12, 2019 by jrober38 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, jrober38 said: I'm fairly certain there's zero evidence to support this opinion. Saying it's a woman's choice to get pregnant due to being raped or molested by a family member is a bit much. What kind of half-assed logic is this? Women choosing to murder their children will lead to increased deaths of the women who murdered their children. Nothing to do with rape and *****. But you know what? Nevermind that. I’ve been hoping you’d eventually come back with that argument, Mr. “I don’t care about 1.3%”. Only 0.69% (that’s roughly half the 1.3% figure you’re dismissing as too minuscule to care about) of all abortions are, combined, to save the life/health of the mother (0.36%), because of fetal birth defects (0.24%), and rape/***** (0.09%). https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/ Reconcile. Edited September 13, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: It's not that black and white since there's no clear definition of when life begins. Lack of access to cheap contraceptives leads to a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies causing more women to seek abortions. That's because we live in a completely amoral society. If we had ANY kind of coherent morality in this country, it wouldn't be so vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 4 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Lack of access to cheap contraceptives leads to a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies causing more women to seek abortions. And say Doc, which party is causing that ??......................and ask yourself why ? Democrats, not Republicans, block over-the-counter birth control https://www.usatoday.com › story › opinion › 2019/06/11 › i-am-a-conser.. Jun 11, 2019 - You might think that Republicans are the ones keeping birth control from being over-the-counter. You would be wrong. Senate Dems rebuke GOP's over-the-counter birth control bill ... https://thehill.com › policy › healthcare › 244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gop... Jun 9, 2015 - A bill from Sen. Murray would force insurers to cover over-the-counter birth control. Over-the-Counter Contraception Is Immensely Popular. But ... https://reason.com › 2019/01/16 › deregulate-the-pill Jan 16, 2019 - Democrats often wax on about a woman's right to take control of her .... who had urged the FDA to stop stalling and threatening to block then–President Bush's ... Making birth control available over the counter played well with ... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 2 hours ago, B-Man said: And say Doc, which party is causing that ??......................and ask yourself why ? Democrats, not Republicans, block over-the-counter birth control https://www.usatoday.com › story › opinion › 2019/06/11 › i-am-a-conser.. Jun 11, 2019 - You might think that Republicans are the ones keeping birth control from being over-the-counter. You would be wrong. Senate Dems rebuke GOP's over-the-counter birth control bill ... https://thehill.com › policy › healthcare › 244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gop... Jun 9, 2015 - A bill from Sen. Murray would force insurers to cover over-the-counter birth control. Over-the-Counter Contraception Is Immensely Popular. But ... https://reason.com › 2019/01/16 › deregulate-the-pill Jan 16, 2019 - Democrats often wax on about a woman's right to take control of her .... who had urged the FDA to stop stalling and threatening to block then–President Bush's ... Making birth control available over the counter played well with ... . From the four year old Hill article, why didn't Republicans propose a bill at the time making over the counter contraceptives like the morning after pill available and maintain the mandate that insurance companies also cover it? Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Tuesday unveiled a bill to keep in place the rule that insurance companies must cover contraception, even if certain methods, like birth control pills, become available without a prescription. The bill is a direct rebuke to Senate Republicans who are trying to champion the issue of over-the-counter birth control. That GOP bill has drawn fire from reproductive health groups like Planned Parenthood Action Fund, however, that warn the legislation would force women to again pay out of pocket for their birth control. “If something is too expensive, it doesn’t matter how easy it is to get. It might as well be on the moon,” Murray told reporters Tuesday. Unlike the Republican bill, Murray’s bill would not provide incentives for insurance companies to offer birth control available over the counter. “We have to be very careful not to put political pressure on the FDA without going through the regular process,” Murray said. “I do think at some point, birth control will be offered over the counter, and when that happens, our bill makes sure insurance companies still cover it,” she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 So I should be able to have sex whenever I want, and if birth control is too expensive, I won't let that keep me from having sex, I just demand that I'm able to get an abortion? So between a woman and her partner, they can't raise the money to purchase a condom? When 2 people can't raise 50 cents, maybe sex shouldn't be what they're focused on? And maybe if your partner isn't willing to help with birth control you shouldn't be ***** him in the first place? This is dumbass argument that entirely skips over the concept of killing a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 45 minutes ago, Joe Miner said: So I should be able to have sex whenever I want, and if birth control is too expensive, I won't let that keep me from having sex, I just demand that I'm able to get an abortion? So between a woman and her partner, they can't raise the money to purchase a condom? When 2 people can't raise 50 cents, maybe sex shouldn't be what they're focused on? And maybe if your partner isn't willing to help with birth control you shouldn't be ***** him in the first place? This is dumbass argument that entirely skips over the concept of killing a baby. It also entirely skips over the fact that contraception is "free" under Obamacare. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: From the four year old Hill article, why didn't Republicans propose a bill at the time making over the counter contraceptives like the morning after pill available and maintain the mandate that insurance companies also cover it? Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Tuesday unveiled a bill to keep in place the rule that insurance companies must cover contraception, even if certain methods, like birth control pills, become available without a prescription. The bill is a direct rebuke to Senate Republicans who are trying to champion the issue of over-the-counter birth control. That GOP bill has drawn fire from reproductive health groups like Planned Parenthood Action Fund, however, that warn the legislation would force women to again pay out of pocket for their birth control. “If something is too expensive, it doesn’t matter how easy it is to get. It might as well be on the moon,” Murray told reporters Tuesday. Unlike the Republican bill, Murray’s bill would not provide incentives for insurance companies to offer birth control available over the counter. “We have to be very careful not to put political pressure on the FDA without going through the regular process,” Murray said. “I do think at some point, birth control will be offered over the counter, and when that happens, our bill makes sure insurance companies still cover it,” she said. So, over the counter birth control might prevent more pregnancies, thus reducing the amount of abortions and cutting into PP's bottom line? What other purpose would PP have to cut down on unwanted pregnancies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Joe Miner said: So I should be able to have sex whenever I want, and if birth control is too expensive, I won't let that keep me from having sex, I just demand that I'm able to get an abortion? So between a woman and her partner, they can't raise the money to purchase a condom? When 2 people can't raise 50 cents, maybe sex shouldn't be what they're focused on? And maybe if your partner isn't willing to help with birth control you shouldn't be ***** him in the first place? This is dumbass argument that entirely skips over the concept of killing a baby. Condoms are only 85% effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 3 hours ago, jrober38 said: Condoms are only 85% effective. Condoms are 98% effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Condoms are 98% effective. If used correctly, which they're not all the time. Also, think about how many millions of times Americans have sex each year. 2% of those encounters results in a LOT of unplanned babies. Edited September 13, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: If used correctly, which they're not all the time. People are idiots. Condoms aren't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: People are idiots. Condoms aren't. ...And just like that, a campaign slogan was born. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: ...And just like that, a campaign slogan was born. I should sell it to Church & Dwight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: People are idiots. Condoms aren't. Even if used correctly everytime, which they aren't, a 2% failure rate will result in a ton of unwanted pregnancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Even if used correctly everytime, which they aren't, a 2% failure rate will result in a ton of unwanted pregnancies. Which is 49 tons less than not used at all. People are idiots, you're living proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Which is 49 tons less than not used at all. People are idiots, you're living proof. 49 tons? LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: 49 tons? LMAO Geez Tom, you're right. Let's leave the squirrel of condom use, and return to the subject of of abortion. Tulsi Gabbard Breaks With Fellow Democrats: Supports Regulating Abortion in Third Trimester. So............minimal amount, or not, the leading Democrats with killing what would be a viable child. Vote for that, . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts