On Sep 28, 7:43*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:37:10 -0400, JustWait









wrote:
On 9/28/2011 5:44 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 28/09/2011 2:36 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/28/11 4:32 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:09:36 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:15:03 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

So, notice in the paragraph where they actually start talking about
"options" the parenting is third in the list of options

I think everyone knows keeping the baby and raising it is the default
option, what happens if you do nothing. That is the choice made by
lots of young girls and why the US is at the top of the list in unwed
teenaged mothers in the industrial world and why infant mortality
numbers are so bad.
People would not even be going to PP if that was their plan.
I also think most people know what PP is.
Perhaps you just want PP to change their name.
Maybe "Plan to not be a parent right now"

You don't think the amount of welfare money given to unwed mothers
with lots of kids has something
to do with the unwed mother rates?

I think the rate in DC is about 80% now.

Let's see...you are anti-abortion and you are anti-supporting the kids
that result when abortion isn't readily available. That makes you...a
mindless conservative.

Hey, maybe the pro-lifers need a tax just for them to support unwed
mothers and mothers where the dad buggers off. Yep, register the
pro-lifers with a surtax to go to support them.

But you are fine with my tax money going to abortions? Yep, you are a
honest to goodness fleabagger for sure.

Personally, I'm fine with all of you pro-life folks shouldering all of
the expense of unwanted children from cradle to grave. Unfortunately,
that isn't the way it works.

Yup, typical fleabagger. You want to **** with no accountability, and
then you want me to pay your bills... Yep, we get it, oh, and we know
who you are but I am not gonna' mention your name till you do mine
again, only difference is this time I come back with nukes...