My body MY CHOICE

[creepycoug]

I get tired of the media fueled abortion debate but how is limiting it to the first 20 weeks unreasonable?

It’s unreasonable because the life of a 19 week old person is at least as morally significant as yours is you dumb box of rocks.

Hope that was helpful.

You're unhinged. Again. Probably butt hurt because I didn't go to your wine and cheese bored after you begged me. Fuck off faggot.

Noted Baby Killer heard from.

The very idea that you think I actually wanted a retard like you swapping IQs with some of our finest thinkers here is Exhibit A-10,000 of your retardation.

If I asked you to join, and I don’t recall doing so, it was for traffic numbers and that is it. You’ve always struck me as quite poor anyway, so what could you have added other than how to scam welfare and social security bennies? Answer: nada. That’s Spanish for “nothing” you undereducated cretin.

You must have "convenient" amnesia.

Yeah, finest thinkers...like the crypto scam guys? LOL. I'll pass pal. I don't even get why you're here so much. My guess is it's to stroke your fragile ego. Go to a Hurricane bored.

Yeah, the poor thing. Nice try. I've dealt with other prick ambulance chasers like you on the boards. Most of you are the same

I'm not your pal, Cletus. Sorry you don't "get" it; seems to be a frequent state of consciousness for you.

And don't tell me what to do, baby killer.

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.

It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.

An unfortunate necessity to be sure.

Don't say that to the left about vaccines. They lose their shit.

I was reading Canada well welcome anyone coming for an abortion. Unless they are unvaxed. True story. Not a joke.

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

 

[creepycoug]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab. [/b]

It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.

An unfortunate necessity to be sure.

Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.

You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.

 

[creepycoug]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

 

[Sledog]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-anti-abortion-group-molotov-cocktail-arson-attack

Mostly peaceful Molotov's.

 

[creepycoug]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-anti-abortion-group-molotov-cocktail-arson-attack

Mostly peaceful Molotov's.

I mean, what did we expect from these people?

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

 

[creepycoug]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

Those terms have lost all meaning for me. I assume that means you haven't moved from protecting the rights to individual determination. That would seem to start with the right to live long enough to make a decision for yourself. I'm going to count you in until you count yourself out and join the heathen baby killers. I hope to not be disappointed.

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

Those terms have lost all meaning for me. I assume that means you haven't moved from protecting the rights to individual determination. That would seem to start with the right to live long enough to make a decision for yourself. I'm going to count you in until you count yourself out and join the heathen baby killers. I hope to not be disappointed.

The meaning of Classical Liberal hasn't changed. Locke is clear on the subject.

 

[creepycoug]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

Those terms have lost all meaning for me. I assume that means you haven't moved from protecting the rights to individual determination. That would seem to start with the right to live long enough to make a decision for yourself. I'm going to count you in until you count yourself out and join the heathen baby killers. I hope to not be disappointed.

The meaning of Classical Liberal hasn't changed. Locke is clear on the subject.

Then I have you down for protection of individual freedom to live. Good choice.

 

[Sledog]

https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1523146558337867779?t=8m-mWQIsn70DL8ev1t2gHg&s=19

BidenBros are there. Never been laid. By a women.

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

Those terms have lost all meaning for me. I assume that means you haven't moved from protecting the rights to individual determination. That would seem to start with the right to live long enough to make a decision for yourself. I'm going to count you in until you count yourself out and join the heathen baby killers. I hope to not be disappointed.

The meaning of Classical Liberal hasn't changed. Locke is clear on the subject.

Then I have you down for protection of individual freedom to live. Good choice.

It's always cute when people think opinions on abortion are tied to religion. Don't you think?

 

[creepycoug]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

What is my point of view on the issue?

Unless I've missed my mark, you are on the side of the righteous and a protector of the liberty of a conceived person.

If you're not, then I'm disappointed, again.

. *classical liberal

I haven't moved

Those terms have lost all meaning for me. I assume that means you haven't moved from protecting the rights to individual determination. That would seem to start with the right to live long enough to make a decision for yourself. I'm going to count you in until you count yourself out and join the heathen baby killers. I hope to not be disappointed.

The meaning of Classical Liberal hasn't changed. Locke is clear on the subject.

Then I have you down for protection of individual freedom to live. Good choice.

It's always cute when people think opinions on abortion are tied to religion. Don't you think?

Yes, I do agree.

But in this case, the religious and the correct secular views are in harmony. It’s always good when things work out.

Plenty of room on the right side for atheists.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab. [/b]

It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.

An unfortunate necessity to be sure.

Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.

You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.

Well, let's have the talk about the founding concept of property and liberty with there of.

I'm pretty sure under the founding concept of property one's own right to autonomy was sacrosanct. Also, one's property extended to the concept of offspring. They were "of your body" and one's body was one's property.

The government had no right and no place to regulate body autonomy and your offspring fell under your own personal autonomy.

Infanticide was fairly common up until after the turn of the last century under this concept.

If rights begin at conception then exactly which rights? Gotta draw a line somewhere...

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab. [/b]

It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.

An unfortunate necessity to be sure.

Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.

You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.

Well, let's have the talk about the founding concept of property and liberty with there of.

I'm pretty sure under the founding concept of property one's own right to autonomy was sacrosanct. Also, one's property extended to the concept of offspring. They were "of your body" and one's body was one's property.

The government had no right and no place to regulate body autonomy and your offspring fell under your own personal autonomy.

Infanticide was fairly common up until after the turn of the last century under this concept.

If rights begin at conception then exactly which rights? Gotta draw a line somewhere...

Same with slaves.

 

[TurdBomber]

I get tired of the media fueled abortion debate but how is limiting it to the first 20 weeks unreasonable?

It’s unreasonable because the life of a 19 week old person is at least as morally significant as yours is you dumb box of rocks.

Hope that was helpful.

You're unhinged. Again. Probably butt hurt because I didn't go to your wine and cheese bored after you begged me. Fuck off faggot.

Wine and Cheese bored...You mean we have ANOTHER GAY sub-chapter in this org?

 

[TurdBomber]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.

Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.

 

[MikeDamone]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.

Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.

Freakanomics suggests abortion does cut down in society's undesirables.

 

[46XiJCAB]

View attachment 49429

Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.

As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.

If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least [/i]as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.

Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????

Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.

Guess what, CC? Women on welfare frequently trap men by saying they're on the pill when they aren't. I had a scumbag tenant who did it twice to unsuspecting guys, then refused to get rid of the kid, so you and I have been paying for her 2 illegitimate kids for 30 years now. Think those kids have become productive members of society? Nope. Both on welfare and the oldest has been in and out of jail about a dozen times.

Sometimes a mercy killing is justified for the benefit of society as a whole.

True. But we are better as people when the law of averages are applied. Society has always and will always produce its fair amount of drecks with or without the availability of abortion.