Pro-abortion

[karisma]

That sounds reasonable to me. Do I have the right to 'bodily integrity' if it means you will lose your life?

Yes. And you do have this right, in this country. Say I needed a kidney and you were a perfect matched donor. Can the government require you by law to give me a kidney to save my life? Of course not. It's the same concept.

 

[karisma]

I didn't want to turn this into one of these debates....[/quote[

Then don't.

But do you REALIZE how disgusting and inhuman of a statement that was you just uttered?

I think you make disgusting and inhumane statements that women should be forced by law to surrender their bodies to the government. It's all a matter of opinion.

You consider your CHILD an "intruder to be removed?!"

I don't have a child, nor have I ever been pregnant, but if I were right now, yes, that's exactly how I'd feel.

If it's such an inconvenient time to have children that if "the worst should happen" you'd have to kill it... don't have sex. If it's that important, get yourself steralized...

I don't think my bf of 6 years would like it much if I suddenly cut him off. Women are also fertile for a span of about 30 years (give or take). The vast majority of those years are years in which I plan on having no children. I might not ever want kids. Should I never be allowed this natural event?

... Again... where does this end? Say you have a kid... they're 16, and they get pregnant. THEIR child is not only leeching off of them, but will cost YOU money. Since it would then be inconvenient for you, are YOU allowed to falcon punch your daughter so it will be less of a burdon upon you? Or just straight out kill her for being an inconvenience at that point?

Are you seriously asking me these questions? Of course I don't have the right to kill the already born as they are not directly feeding off my blood and bodily organs.

 

[karisma]

So if a couple are still dating... girl gets pregnant. The boy's actually very excited about being a father, but the girl decides she's not ready. The girl may chose to kill the boy's child with or without his consent.

Likewise, if the girl wanted to keep it, but the boy wasn't ready to be a father, does HE have the right to end the baby's life with or without the mother's consent?

Yes, the girl's the only one that has to give birth, but the boy's the one that will have to pay child support for 18 years, which is much longer than 9 months of discomfort.

Or do men have NO say in the matter, while women are completely free to kill OUR children without so much as asking us?

I agree, this is completely unfair in the law. In my opinion, if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it, but the man does not, he should be able to walk away from any child support.

Or don't you see that as a problem too? Yes... you're protecting your body... but you're killing OUR child doing it? Are men not allowed to protect our children, by physically stopping someone from harming them? Do we not have that basic right?

Not when it does not reside in your body.

Or are we legally obligated to stand aside while you murder our child simply because you find it an inconvenience?

Yes. If it's such a concern this issue should be addressed with any potential partners before sex ever takes place.

Even if we offer to take it and not have you be bothered at all after it's birth, you still have the right to say "well, I don't want my figure ruined, so I'd rather just kill it so I look prettier."

Yes, that's all women are concerned about, their figures. It's not the massive weight gain, morning sickness, fatigue, time off work, major changes in eating habits, denial of social activities, major MAJOR painful birthing process, etc, and that's an uncomplicated pregnancy. Add in gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, all the other "fun" stuff that can crop up during gestation and you have a serious issue.

And you think it's about women worrying about their figures..

 

[karisma]

Dear Karisma,
they aren’t unwanted, they were the risk the woman took when having sex.

Absolutely, I want to stop abortions to save lives, the woman shouldn’t have taken the risk with the sex in the first place.

Do you support making it the law for parents (mom and dad) to be forced to give blood or other organs to their child after birth (to age 18) if it necessary to save their life?

From your reasoning it sounds more like you are wanting to punish women for having sex.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

How do you directly treat, say, an ectopic pregnancy without endangering the fetus?

I never said anything about not endangering the fetus, in the case of ectopic pregnancy you treat the mother (usually removal of the tube) in which case the pregnancy will no longer be viable, in the course of treating the mother.

No one "sells" abortions. It's made clear it's an available option to those in need.

really? Well then, why the advertisement, why charge money? It is an industry, one that makes money. I think 'sell' is an appropriate word. I also see a lot of the language you particularly have used in this thread as very fear and emotion based - the last thing women in such a situation need.

-~Truth_N_Trust~-[/B]]Abortion should not be a 'back up' birth control!

Well that's exactly what it is. It prevents a birth. Maybe what you mean is it should not be a primary birth control? It's not.

No, I meant what I said. This thread is about possible exceptions for pro-lifer's. It should not be a back up birth control in the sense of reproductive control as a part of 'bodily integrity' or 'sexual liberty'. Unfortunately the enromous amount of abortions perfomed imply that it is seen as a 'back up' for a whoops. I do not think that it should be this way. It is my opinion - which is what this thread was asking for...​

 

[karisma]

really? Well then, why the advertisement, why charge money? It is an industry, one that makes money. I think 'sell' is an appropriate word.

They need to advertise so women know where they can go, and obviously charge money because the procedure costs money.

I also see a lot of the language you particularly have used in this thread as very fear and emotion based - the last thing women in such a situation need.

What?? Seriously? I have used a fear and emotionally based argument?? Where? I've been trying present my argument from a legalistic and consistency-in-the-law standpoint. Consistency as in, it needs to be pointed out that pro-lifers want to make it mandatory for women to share their bodies (aka blood and organs) against their will to a fetus, but as soon as the baby is born neither the mother/father is required to share blood/organs to save their babies life. This is granting more rights to fetus's than any born child has. To be consistent, you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to have to donate any blood or organs that child ever needs- no matter what.

I realize my wording was horrible there but I worked the overnight last night and literally did not sleep and am running on pure caffeine right now. I hope you catch what I mean.

No, I meant what I said. This thread is about possible exceptions for pro-lifer's. It should not be a back up birth control in the sense of reproductive control as a part of 'bodily integrity' or 'sexual liberty'. Unfortunately the enromous amount of abortions perfomed imply that it is seen as a 'back up' for a whoops. I do not think that it should be this way. It is my opinion - which is what this thread was asking for...

Sorry I misunderstood. I'm tired.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Karisma,

Do you support making it the law for parents (mom and dad) to be forced to give blood or other organs to their child after birth (to age 18) if it necessary to save their life?

I think that irrelevant but can you first address what I wrote? Do you agree?

From your reasoning it sounds more like you are wanting to punish women for having sex..

How would that work then? When a woman and a man choose to have sex I have no control over what happens, if its unprotected conception may occur. If conception occurs there is a life.
But I guess according to your thinking yes I would rather you misguidedly think I am punishing the woman for having sex as long as the life isn’t terminated.

 

[The Gregorian]

Gregorian, you bring up a good point about men. It seems that this is all too often a women's problem.

Aye... you have no IDEA what it's like when your girlfriend's been overly emotional for a while, then gets mad at you one day and disappears for a while... and in the back of your mind it occurs to you that she may have been pregnant, and she may have just killed your child because she was mad at you... First, you don't even get to know... you might have had a child... then have to live with the possibility that something you said caused someone to kill it. And you don't even have the right to know for sure.

Trust me... abortion effects men. It's not just -your- body.

And in cases like that, it's usually the woman who ends up raising the child(feed, clothe ect) for 18 years, which is much harder than writing a check (and so is pregnancy!). When it comes to pregnancy and having kids, women have it a lot harder than men. Whatever a man may go through is nothing compared to what happens to the woman(and it's alot more than discomfort in many cases). In fact, men have it rather easy. They can just walk away, or get off with only sending a check. Many men never even see their children. A man can get a woman pregnant, wlak away, and never have to deal with it. No matter what the woman chooses to do, she must face and deal with the pregnancy, and none of the options are easy.

First: Have you ever looked at it from the other side of the fence? For example, my dad was married to someone else before he met my mom. They had a kid, and she decided to leave him. She took my half-sister and my dad has only seen his daughter twice since then. Yet he's been paying child support the whole time. Yes, the act of writing a check is easy... but some people don't have unlimited resources. He was paying more in child support than he could afford for the family he lived with. He wanted to help raise his daughter, but the woman decided she wanted the child to herself.... but still wanted him to support the two of them even if it meant the rest of us had to live in some pretty horrible places. I remember for a long time we couldn't even afford a phone, let alone a TV. Meanwhile they were taken care of just dandy. I guess she figured (correctly) that she could get more money out of him via the courts than she could just living with him... plus she could still get with some other dude and have him pay whatever my dad's check didn't cover.

So, no... it's not as easy as "just writing a check."

And you say "Many men never even see their children." as though that were a good thing. Can you IMAGINE not even KNOWING if you have a child? Or worse, knowing you have one, but knowing you may never get to see it? Assuming you're a decent parent, if someone showed up on your doorstep one day and just took your kids to a boarding school where you would never see them again... and all it cost you was 1/3 of your paycheck for the next 18 years... would you really be happy about that?

You'd never have to see them again, and you'd get off just having to send a check.

No, a man does not have a say in whether or not an abortion is performed. He is not the one who is pregnant. He does not have the right to tell her what medical procedures she can and can't have. The only people who have the authority to make decisions about a pregnancy and birth is the woman and her doctor/midwife. No one else. It's the woman who has to go through the weight gain, changes in body structure and organ functioning, the risk of diseases like pre-eclampsia and gestional diabetes, and the pain of labor. So no, since he doesn't have to deal with the physical effects of carrying a pregnancy, a man does not have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion. you may not like it, but that's the way it is.

What you do to YOUR body is fine... but if I have a child, and someone knowingly endangers my child... or kills my child so that they don't gain weight... do I have NO right to do ANYTHING about that?

... Because I'm the farthest thing possible from a violent man... but if someone killed my child for such a self-centered superficial reason as not wanting to gain weight temporarily... I would rip their arms off. Not figuratively. And I would be justified in doing so.

This thread was supposed to spread understanding, but that sort of closed-minded, heartless rubbish...

Simple way to solve the abortion riddle without complication: Allow abortion... but as part of the abortion process, a complete Hysterectomy.

You can have the child, or not have children again. You get the right to choose... but it is a BIG decision.

 

[The Gregorian]

I think you make disgusting and inhumane statements that women should be forced by law to surrender their bodies to the government.

That doesn't even make sense. Who's surrendering anything to their government? If you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. If you eat raw chicken you run the risk of getting sick. The government has nothing to do with either. Actions have consequences... you have sex, you're at risk of getting pregnant. It's not PUNISHMENT for a woman to "not provide means for women to kill someone else's child in order to avoid the consequences of their actions."

I don't think my bf of 6 years would like it much if I suddenly cut him off. Women are also fertile for a span of about 30 years (give or take). The vast majority of those years are years in which I plan on having no children. I might not ever want kids. Should I never be allowed this natural event?

If you're not opposed to having children enough to get yourself sterilized, you can't justify killing your child for the reason that wouldn't warrant sterilization. If you have an elective abortion, it should come with a complete hysterectomy. Packaged deal.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear karisma,

No, a man does not have a say in whether or not an abortion is performed

A father does, its his child as much as the mothers.

 

[KET20]

A father does, its his child as much as the mothers.

Hmmm... how can I explain this and still make sense and not upset people. Well, here goes. I realize that it's not fair that the father has no say in an abortion decision, and I think the mother should discuss it with him provided it was not a rape situation, etc. The problem with giving fathers legal rights concerning unborn children is that we have to draw the line somewhere. There's no getting around it. Giving fathers legal rights concerning unborn children essentially gives them more rights to a woman's body than she has herself. It would give him the right to negate her medical decision and force her to have children even if she does not want to or her life is threatened. That is obviously not a good direction for society to go... women start to become property again. It is because of these problems that we cannot ethically draw the line there. So instead, we draw it at the person who is pregnant in the first place. She gets to decide, because the unborn baby is inside her body and making the decision hers assures that someone else does not have more power over her body than she does. Does that make sense?

As a sidenote, it is my opinion that a married woman, assuming she was not raped, should have to secure her husband's permission to have an abortion. I'm really not sure why she doesn't... both husband and wife already have to have the other's permission to be sterilized.

 

[karisma]

Dear Karisma,

I think that irrelevant but can you first address what I wrote? Do you agree?

What did I not address? Can you quote yourself so I know what to address?

And my scenario is completely relevent. This is how: life does not end at birth. You believe that women should be forced against their will to share their blood and organs with another human, even at the cost of the woman's freedom, health, emotional and physical issues, etc. You say you believe this because you want to save lives, and claim it is because it is taking responsibility for having sex. Like I said, life doesn't end at birth. To be consistent, you must also support both parents being forced to share their blood and organs after birth if that child needs it (up to adulthood). This is what pregnant women are forced to do for 9 months and after birth now both mom and dad would have to be required to give blood/organs as necessary- no matter what. According to you, that's the risk you take for having sex so I guess it just sucks to be anyone with a problem with a leaky condom, doesn't it?

How would that work then? When a woman and a man choose to have sex I have no control over what happens, if its unprotected conception may occur. If conception occurs there is a life.

But you want to control the woman's options and give less rights to pregnant women than men have.

But I guess according to your thinking yes I would rather you misguidedly think I am punishing the woman for having sex as long as the life isn’t terminated.

See above.

 

[karisma]

I couldn't help but notice you didn't address my entire post.

That doesn't even make sense. Who's surrendering anything to their government?

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies makes them little more than government incubators. It reduces their rights to less than a man's and is extreme sexism.

If you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy.

Very minimal risk, with proper birth control methods (<1% chance).

If you eat raw chicken you run the risk of getting sick.

That's right, and even if one is stupid enough to eat raw chicken, they can go to a doctor or hospital to be treated.

The government has nothing to do with either.

Yeah, but it does have something to do with telling women they cannot have treatment for their condition.

Actions have consequences...

Yep they do, but that doesn't mean we can refuse to treat a patient because they did something stupid, or refuse to fix someone's car because they got into an accident... after all, driving has risks, right?

you have sex, you're at risk of getting pregnant.

Yep you do. And you have available options to deal with it if it's unwanted.

It's not PUNISHMENT for a woman to "not provide means for women to kill someone else's child in order to avoid the consequences of their actions."

Some would see it that way. It's not avoiding consequences. It's another method of dealing with the consequences. The consequence is the pregnancy. The abortion is the method of dealing with it.

If you're not opposed to having children enough to get yourself sterilized,

I don't want kids. But I realize I'm young and might someday change my mind and I want to keep my options open. Besides, what doctor is going to tie the tubes of a young healthy 24 year old woman with no kids?

you can't justify killing your child for the reason that wouldn't warrant sterilization.

But I can justify having it removed from my body. The fact that it results in it's death is secondary.

If you have an elective abortion, it should come with a complete hysterectomy. Packaged deal.

Good thing you aren't a politician. Not that this would ever pass anyway.

 

[karisma]

Aye... you have no IDEA what it's like when your girlfriend's been overly emotional for a while, then gets mad at you one day and disappears for a while... and in the back of your mind it occurs to you that she may have been pregnant, and she may have just killed your child because she was mad at you... First, you don't even get to know... you might have had a child... then have to live with the possibility that something you said caused someone to kill it. And you don't even have the right to know for sure.

Trust me... abortion effects men. It's not just -your- body.

It might affect men but yeah, it is, just our body.

See my post above about discussing this potential situation before ever having sex if it's something so important to you.

And you say "Many men never even see their children." as though that were a good thing.

That can be a good thing, depending on the person!

Can you IMAGINE not even KNOWING if you have a child? Or worse, knowing you have one, but knowing you may never get to see it? Assuming you're a decent parent, if someone showed up on your doorstep one day and just took your kids to a boarding school where you would never see them again... and all it cost you was 1/3 of your paycheck for the next 18 years... would you really be happy about that?

You'd never have to see them again, and you'd get off just having to send a check.

Yes it is unfair. Write your Congressperson.

What you do to YOUR body is fine... but if I have a child, and someone knowingly endangers my child... or kills my child so that they don't gain weight... do I have NO right to do ANYTHING about that?

No one has an abortion because they don't want to gain weight. Stop spreading filthy lies. Unwanted pregnancy is a complex situation with many serious issues involved. Stop minimizing pregnancy. It's disgusting.

And no, you don't have the right as long as men are not able to give birth.

... Because I'm the farthest thing possible from a violent man... but if someone killed my child for such a self-centered superficial reason as not wanting to gain weight temporarily... I would rip their arms off. Not figuratively. And I would be justified in doing so.

Seriously, where do you get this garbage from? Did you regurgitate it from some hate filled pro-life website? It's such a load of crap you are only damaging your own case because no one takes that seriously.

This thread was supposed to spread understanding, but that sort of closed-minded, heartless rubbish...

Yes it is rubbish. Stupid rubbish. So stop spreading lies.

Simple way to solve the abortion riddle without complication: Allow abortion... but as part of the abortion process, a complete Hysterectomy.

Pointless. It still wouldn't stop abortion. Not even close. Not to mention it will never happen so why not suggest a more reasonable solution?

You can have the child, or not have children again. You get the right to choose... but it is a BIG decision.

Good luck with that one.

How about comprehensive sex education in schools, and easy access to a variety of cheap/free contraceptives?

 

[karisma]

Dear karisma,
A father does, its his child as much as the mothers.

Yeah, dad can have a say, but as it's not his body, it's not his call to make.

 

[karisma]

As a sidenote, it is my opinion that a married woman, assuming she was not raped, should have to secure her husband's permission to have an abortion. I'm really not sure why she doesn't... both husband and wife already have to have the other's permission to be sterilized.

Do you have a source for that? I haven't heard that before.

This still wouldn't work though, because it still would grant fetus's more rights than born people have, aka, the right to violate someone else's body against their will.

 

[The Gregorian]

Yes... sex is more risky for women. That's a reality.

Just like men are at risk of being hit in the balls at any given point in the day. It comes with our gender, and it sucks. Sex is not something women should be able to do knowing that if they get pregnant there is no consequence to getting "their condition fixed."

The arrogance that women show is astounding. Today it's perfectly acceptable to throw your cleavage out there, then throw a fit if you think anyone glanced at them. And if someone has the nerve to offend you, it's perfectly acceptable for you to walk up and hit him with no repercussion... but if the man were to block the strike and hold your wrists so you stop hitting him and bruise your poor li'l arm, he assaulted you and can go to jail. Then if we REALLY deserve it... say we look at another woman, it's perfectly fine for a woman to knee us in the balls, not being able to imagine the pain. To give you an idea... I've been hit by a car. Cracked the guy's windshield with my face. It wasn't pleasant, but I was just fine. Even a mild hit to the balls still instantly drops me to the floor unable to move. Women claim pregnancy is the worst pain imaginable... except maybe kidney stones... And I've had kidney stones a couple times... the intensity of pain of kidney stones is nothing compared to a good shot to the groin. And you know when pregnancy is coming. You can take drugs pre-emptively. It's not a surprise. Guys can be hit in the balls any time of any day with no warning whatsoever.

If you get drunk at a party and mess around with a guy, you can decide later that you didn't really want to, therefore call him a rapist and put him in jail. Just throw the term out because it means nothing to you, even though such an accusation can destroy a person for the rest of his life. If you want, you can seduce someone, get pregnant, and the man's responsible to support you for the next 18 years... Or if you get pregnant, you can hold the child hostage and get whatever you want because if he doesn't give it to you, you can just kill his child because that's your right and he has no say.

And yet so many women are still these little princesses that expect everything to just be given to them. And even the mention of the word "modesty" is offensive...

Not all are like all that... but way to large of a percentage are. And they're worthless pieces of arrogant trash.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

Because I'm the farthest thing possible from a violent man... but if someone killed my child for such a self-centered superficial reason as not wanting to gain weight temporarily...

If you think that's the reason women get abortions you are WAY off. How about women who cannot afford another child? There are women who literally cannot afford to be pregnant; the rest of the family would end up in poverty(some of them may actually be thinking about the welfare of their other children!). Some of them have medical conditions that would put them in danger if they carry a pregnancy to term. Others choose abortion because they will be kicked out of their house of worse if people find out she was pregnant (since "my dad will kill me" isn't just a figure of speech..)
Pregnancy does a lot more than make women gain weight. A pregnancy puts a big strain on every organ in a woman's body. It changes how much her heart works, her breathing, even her blood volume! A pregnancy is can be very rough. It's not nearly as easy as you might think it is.
There are many reasons that women have abortions, and not all of them are selfish either. The comment about not wanting gain weight suggests that you don't really know what goes into the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy. Every situation is different. Why do you ask me if I have ever looked at it from you side, when you haven't fully looked at it from ours?

And you say "Many men never even see their children." as though that were a good thing. Can you IMAGINE not even KNOWING if you have a child?

No, I don't think it's a good thing. I was saying that there are a lot of deadbeat 'dads' who just walk off. I think that's horrible. However, I don't have a lot of simply for most men who don't know if they have children or not. In the majority(I realize not all) cases, that situation could be easily avoided if people would think first.Make sure you know a woman fairly well before you sleep with her! Yes, I realize that this sometimes happens to decent men who try to do everything right, and it's not their fault at all, such as cases where a wife or girlfriend simply walks out. However, in the majority of cases, if a man doesn't know whether he has kids, it's at least partly his fault for not being more careful.

Assuming you're a decent parent, if someone showed up on your doorstep one day and just took your kids to a boarding school where you would never see them again... and all it cost you was 1/3 of your paycheck for the next 18 years... would you really be happy about that?

No, not at all. I'm not a parent yet, but one day I hope to be. I'm sorry that that situation happened with your family. However, a lot of men are not as good as your father. But your family's case cannot be used to authorize every man in America to have total control over a woman's medical decision.

It may seem unfair that you don't have a say in abortion, but that's the way it is. You can't make a medical decision for a competent adult, and I'm personally very glad about that. If your not the one directly affected by having the procedure (ie the patient), you should have no say about the treatment.

If you have an elective abortion, it should come with a complete hysterectomy

Do you know what a 'complete hysterectomy' is?It's removal of the uterus, the cervix, and sometimes the fallopian tubes and the ovaries. It's major surgery with a lot of complications. It can cause major hormonal imbalances, and can even women enter menopause way too early if the ovaries are affected. No 20 year old should be menopausal! Doctors do not do hysterectomies unless they have to. They usually try everything else first, and only do a hysterectomy if it's necessary to save the woman. It's not minor, routine surgery. Surgical abortion is an outpatient, quick procedure (usually only 5 minutes or so is spent on the actual procedure) . Hysterectomies are not. Doing a hysterectomy for no reason would be so dangerous that there would be no way to justify it. Besides, just because a woman has an abortion, it doesn't mean that she never wants kids. Many women who have had abortions have gone on to have families. I'm just thankful that a law like that doesn't have even a slight chance of making it.

 

[Akathist]

​

Mod Hat Post​

This thread is getting too heated. Do not make your posts personal about each other but stick to the topic. If you are losing your self control, take a break from the thread or the computer rather then let yourself post without thinking.​

The thread is closed for a cool down.

Reopening thread.​

 

[karisma]

Yes... sex is more risky for women. That's a reality.

Just like men are at risk of being hit in the balls at any given point in the day. It comes with our gender, and it sucks. Sex is not something women should be able to do knowing that if they get pregnant there is no consequence to getting "their condition fixed."

The arrogance that women show is astounding. Today it's perfectly acceptable to throw your cleavage out there, then throw a fit if you think anyone glanced at them. And if someone has the nerve to offend you, it's perfectly acceptable for you to walk up and hit him with no repercussion... but if the man were to block the strike and hold your wrists so you stop hitting him and bruise your poor li'l arm, he assaulted you and can go to jail. Then if we REALLY deserve it... say we look at another woman, it's perfectly fine for a woman to knee us in the balls, not being able to imagine the pain. To give you an idea... I've been hit by a car. Cracked the guy's windshield with my face. It wasn't pleasant, but I was just fine. Even a mild hit to the balls still instantly drops me to the floor unable to move. Women claim pregnancy is the worst pain imaginable... except maybe kidney stones... And I've had kidney stones a couple times... the intensity of pain of kidney stones is nothing compared to a good shot to the groin. And you know when pregnancy is coming. You can take drugs pre-emptively. It's not a surprise. Guys can be hit in the balls any time of any day with no warning whatsoever.

If you get drunk at a party and mess around with a guy, you can decide later that you didn't really want to, therefore call him a rapist and put him in jail. Just throw the term out because it means nothing to you, even though such an accusation can destroy a person for the rest of his life. If you want, you can seduce someone, get pregnant, and the man's responsible to support you for the next 18 years... Or if you get pregnant, you can hold the child hostage and get whatever you want because if he doesn't give it to you, you can just kill his child because that's your right and he has no say.

And yet so many women are still these little princesses that expect everything to just be given to them. And even the mention of the word "modesty" is offensive...

Not all are like all that... but way to large of a percentage are. And they're worthless pieces of arrogant trash.

This has nothing to do with abortion.