Can we all agree this is disgusting?

[blackascoal]

There is no contradiction. You're simply demonstrating your own ignorance of the pro-life position. We are opposed to abortion, yes, but we also believe in personal responsibility (which is why I oppose abortion to begin with). She didn't become pregnant by accident. What she did was very irresponsible, and now we as taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. Do you find that acceptable?

So after she became pregnant, had she come to realize that she could not take care of the children, would an abortion been acceptable?

The contradiction is that "pro-lifers" .. more correctly known as pro-UNBORN-lifers, don't believe that coming to that conclusion is acceptable at any time, whether the mother got pregnant intentionally or not .. many even in the case of rape.

It is irresponsible to preach about "life" then not giving a damn about that life once born.

It is accfeptable to me that she will now need public assistance .. yes it is. FAR more acceptable and FAR less costly than doling out trillions of dollars to wealthy bankers.

You see, I care about life AFTER it's born.

 

[blackascoal]

I have to agree with you. though I believe that the world is well rid of right wing nuts, and they are repellant in every way as this thread shows, even the appearance of advocating violence is to be avoided as stridently as one avoids mating with a right-winger. Which is to say; at all costs.

.. you funny.

I almost dumped my cereal on my laptop.

 

[Damocles]

So after she became pregnant, had she come to realize that she could not take care of the children, would an abortion been acceptable?

The contradiction is that "pro-lifers" .. more correctly known as pro-UNBORN-lifers, don't believe that coming to that conclusion is acceptable at any time, whether the mother got pregnant intentionally or not .. many even in the case of rape.

It is irresponsible to preach about "life" then not giving a damn about that life once born.

It is accfeptable to me that she will now need public assistance .. yes it is. FAR more acceptable and FAR less costly than doling out trillions of dollars to wealthy bankers.

You see, I care about life AFTER it's born.

And I care for life at all stages.

I do find it problematic and a focus for change if somebody who is already on welfare is being implanted with embryos at a clip where their family will become a majority of the population in just a few generations... That doesn't mean that I think they should take away such a person's aid, just that we should look into the vetting process used by companies who provide such a service.

There is no reason not to smell the coffee when it's brewing. It can even be pleasant.

 

[blackascoal]

And I care for life at all stages.

I do find it problematic and a focus for change if somebody who is already on welfare is being implanted with embryos at a clip where their family will become a majority of the population in just a few generations... That doesn't mean that I think they should take away such a person's aid, just that we should look into the vetting process used by companies who provide such a service.

There is no reason not to smell the coffee when it's brewing. It can even be pleasant.

What I smell ain't coffee my brother, it's ideology. That's all that's brewing here.

This is an isolated case of one woman of questionable intelligence on stage at the same time we are giving away trillions of dollars to already rich people.

 

[Damocles]

What I smell ain't coffee my brother, it's ideology. That's all that's brewing here.

This is an isolated case of one woman of questionable intelligence on stage at the same time we are giving away trillions of dollars to already rich people.

What I see is ideological incapacity to hold more than one conversation at a time. We both agree that rich people shouldn't be getting handouts. So, let's start by thinking about what happened here. Was it good? Should we see if such a circumstance can regularly happen? Or should we ignore it because you can't hold more than one topic at a time in your head?

One person can be an example that will help us to create good policy.

It isn't because the coffee isn't brewing that you can't smell it, it is because of what you are adding to it.


Anyway, it doesn't appear as if this is as secluded of a case as people think.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo_another_octuplets_mom_in_la

 

[blackascoal]

What I see is ideological incapacity to hold more than one conversation at a time. We both agree that rich people shouldn't be getting handouts. So, let's start by thinking about what happened here. Was it good? Should we see if such a circumstance can regularly happen? Or should we ignore it because you can't hold more than one topic at a time in your head?

One person can be an example that will help us to create good policy.

It isn't because the coffee isn't brewing that you can't smell it, it is because of what you are adding to it.


Anyway, it doesn't appear as if this is as secluded of a case as people think.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo_another_octuplets_mom_in_la

I don't really think you believe I can't hold more than one conversation/topic at a time. That's bullshit and we both know it.

What I can do while discussing more than one topic at a time is also recognize the bullshit that keeps Americans stupid.

If you put all the cases of babymama abuse you can find, it won't amount to an iota of what we've thrown away. If that fact gets in the way of your conversation, I can't help that .. but I certainly see it a part of the conversation.

I have NO problems with society helping to take care of children, no matter what the circumstance was that brought them into this world.

What next .. should we adopt the China one child policy?

Should we set up a board of conservatives to determine who should have a child and who should not?

Should we toss this mother into prison?

This nation is teetering on disaster and some want to talk about peanuts.

That aroma I smell is the stank odor of ideology, not coffee, not consistent thought, not common sense.

 

[Damocles]

I don't really think you believe I can't hold more than one conversation/topic at a time. That's bullshit and we both know it.

What I can do while discussing more than one topic at a time is also recognize the bullshit that keeps Americans stupid.

If you put all the cases of babymama abuse you can find, it won't amount to an iota of what we've thrown away. If that fact gets in the way of your conversation, I can't help that .. but I certainly see it a part of the conversation.

I have NO problems with society helping to take care of children, no matter what the circumstance was that brought them into this world.

What next .. should we adopt the China one child policy?

Should we set up a board of conservatives to determine who should have a child and who should not?

Should we toss this mother into prison?

This nation is teetering on disaster and some want to talk about peanuts.

That aroma I smell is the stank odor of ideology, not coffee, not consistent thought, not common sense.

Yeah, but the stink isn't coming from my direction.

"Ideology" supposedly would put me on the side to save every embryo they create. Yet that isn't what I propound.

Would this woman have been able to adopt 8 children with no visible means of support? In all reality, although they are implanted, that is pretty much what happened.

Again. Nobody here suggests putting this woman in jail, what they suggest is more control over companies that provide such services. There is no reason that the irresponsible would need your support, except it fits within your ideology to maintain government dependency.

I prefer that if we are going to extraordinary means to produce a child, that a bit more care be taken to see that it is a responsible action not one that burdens others unnecessarily just so you can expand and grow the demographic that lives off the public teat, the attempt to dismiss what you believe is "unimportant" because you want to talk about something else is laughable.

I'll be in that other thread talking about too, it is only you that attempts to grind conversation to a halt because you don't want to talk about this subject and only want people to focus on what you want them to see.

 

[Cancel10]

So after she became pregnant, had she come to realize that she could not take care of the children, would an abortion been acceptable?

Have you bothered to read the story at all?

Her pregnancy was no accident; women do not "become pregnant" naturally with octuplets. She conceived via in vitro fertilization. Speaking of which, that charlatan of a physician ought to have his license to practice medicine permanently revoked.

And with all due respect, this discussion has nothing to do with abortion. I simply find it unacceptable that I must pay for another individual's (or corporation's) irresponsible, reckless decisions. That is all.

You see, I care about life AFTER it's born.

Great! So what is stopping you from supporting them (financially) if you feel so inclined? Alas, it would seem liberals are the most generous people of all, so long as it isn't their money. In fact, numerous studies reveal liberals to be far less charitable than their conservative counterparts. Guess they can't put their money where their mouth is, eh?

- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Link

 

[blackascoal]

Yeah, but the stink isn't coming from my direction.

"Ideology" supposedly would put me on the side to save every embryo they create. Yet that isn't what I propound.

Would this woman have been able to adopt 8 children with no visible means of support? In all reality, although they are implanted, that is pretty much what happened.

Again. Nobody here suggests putting this woman in jail, what they suggest is more control over companies that provide such services. There is no reason that the irresponsible would need your support, except it fits within your ideology to maintain government dependency.

I prefer that if we are going to extraordinary means to produce a child, that a bit more care be taken to see that it is a responsible action not one that burdens others unnecessarily just so you can expand and grow the demographic that lives off the public teat, the attempt to dismiss what you believe is "unimportant" because you want to talk about something else is laughable.

I'll be in that other thread talking about too, it is only you that attempts to grind conversation to a halt because you don't want to talk about this subject and only want people to focus on what you want them to see.

A monumentall stupid .. no, make that monumentally IGNORANT response coming from you.

"... so I can grow the demographic thelives off the public teat" .. excuse me sir, but I support a womans' right to choose. Reconcile that truth with your utterly ridiculous and cartoonish assertion and see what you come up with. Now I'm GROWING socialists. Stupid.

And how you get I want to dismiss what I don't think is important is even more ignorant than your other stupid assertion. Perhaps you haven't noticed but I don't post in every thread. Threads about things I believe unimportant I DON"T POST IN.

Your problem is that I ridicule "issues" like this .. which I believe is important to do. It's a fucking stretch to even call this an issue.

What I've come to realize over the course of my life is that Americans would always rather talk about some idiotic media-created distraction rather than deal with tough issues. I'm simply pointing out this is that media-created distraction .. that's my opinion and if you don't agree with it, fine. I can live with that.

But it's a bit beneath you to start accusing me of "growing people" to suit what you think my ideology is, of which you have no clue obviously .. when in fact, I support the right of this woman to have aborted those embryos if she chose to do so. Would it not be those who insist a woman have a child who could be more correctly accused of "growing people?" .. you know, like you. Do you support this woman's right to have aborted these embryos? Yet you want to lecture me about what?

Perhaps you haven't had your coffee yet .. but wake the fuck up.

 

[Damocles]

A monumentall stupid .. no, make that monumentally IGNORANT response coming from you.

Except it isn't. Every time you post you attempt to shut off the conversation and tell me again how much you support a person who already is on welfare having 8 more implanted artificially.

"... so I can grow the demographic thelives off the public teat" .. excuse me sir, but I support a womans' right to choose. Reconcile that truth with your utterly ridiculous and cartoonish assertion and see what you come up with. Now I'm GROWING socialists. Stupid.

Again, I support logical rules set on companies that would manufacture children. You either speak in ignorance of what happened or support continued irresponsible action by the company in order to create a larger demographic. I assumed that you were not ignorant, it appears I picked incorrectly. (Actually I was hoping it would make you want to actually read the story so you would understand that this isn't about her right to abort, it is about somebody who had children created purposefully that they could not afford. She wasn't going to abort the children, she had the capability to limit the number that were implanted to begin with.)

And how you get I want to dismiss what I don't think is important is even more ignorant than your other stupid assertion. Perhaps you haven't noticed but I don't post in every thread. Threads about things I believe unimportant I DON"T POST IN.

Yet here you keep telling me how much I should pay attention to what you think is important and try to dismiss irresponsible corporate action because you either like the result or are ignorant of the corporate action.

Your problem is that I ridicule "issues" like this .. which I believe is important to do. It's a fucking stretch to even call this an issue.

Again, an attempt to say it is unimportant, you told me that you don't post in threads that you think are unimportant.

What I've come to realize over the course of my life is that Americans would always rather talk about some idiotic media-created distraction rather than deal with tough issues. I'm simply pointing out this is that media-created distraction .. that's my opinion and if you don't agree with it, fine. I can live with that.

Except everybody on this board talks constantly about the issue you think is important as well as this. Nobody here is avoiding the issue you think is important.

But it's a bit beneath you to start accusing me of "growing people" to suit what you think my ideology is, of which you have no clue obviously .. when in fact, I support the right of this woman to have aborted those embryos if she chose to do so. Would it not be those who insist a woman have a child who could be more correctly accused of "growing people?"

Perhaps you haven't had your coffee yet .. but wake the fuck up.

She wasn't going to abort embryos she paid to implant. You don't know what you are talking about on this one. Read the story.

I will also note my opinion. I do not believe that any woman should be forced to incubate a child. I think that embryos should be removed with an attempt to save their life. I believe that this would expand our capabilities and bring real choice to women rather than the choice of incubate or kill.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Damo just jizzed in bac's face.

 

[blackascoal]

Except it isn't. Every time you post you attempt to shut off the conversation and tell me again how much you support a person who already is on welfare having 8 more implanted artificially.

How do I shut off conversation? Do you consider opposition to a position or even ridicule of a position "shutting off conversation?"

I don't.

If you believe what you're saying, stop being a pussy. Say what you believe regardless of what someone else may think. That's what I do.

Again, I support logical rules set on companies that would manufacture children. You either speak in ignorance of what happened or support continued irresponsible action by the company in order to create a larger demographic. I assumed that you were not ignorant, it appears I picked incorrectly. (Actually I was hoping it would make you want to actually read the story so you would understand that this isn't about her right to abort, it is about somebody who had children created purposefully that they could not afford. She wasn't going to abort the children, she had the capability to limit the number that were implanted to begin with.)

I fully understand what this is about and I completely understand this woman of questionable capacity had the embryos implanted. I get that .. and I still see the contradictions in the so-called pro-life position. .. and I still see the stupidity of suggesting I'm out to grow people that fit my ideology. I don't care how mask that, it's stupid.

I ask you again, who determines what the proper number should be?

Yet here you keep telling me how much I should pay attention to what you think is important and try to dismiss irresponsible corporate action because you either like the result or are ignorant of the corporate action.

Dude, I'm not your daddy. I'm not telling you anything, I'm voicing my OPINION.

Beyond the irresponsible corporate action, had she decided after being implanted that she had bitten off more than she could chew, would you support her having an abortion? I ask because that's what happens quite often after a woman finds out she's pregnant.

Again, an attempt to say it is unimportant, you told me that you don't post in threads that you think are unimportant.

Did you miss this part .. "Your problem is that I ridicule "issues" like this .. which I believe is important to do."

Except everybody on this board talks constantly about the issue you think is important as well as this. Nobody here is avoiding the issue you think is important.

As I've said, I see this as a media-created distraction that will soon go away and be replaced by another media-created distraction. I'm just having fun with what I see as contradictions brother.

It is interesting to see "pro-lifers" referring to things now children as "embryos" instead of unborn people. I guess what they are depends on the story you're trying to tell.

She wasn't going to abort embryos she paid to implant. You don't know what you are talking about on this one. Read the story.

I will also note my opinion. I do not believe that any woman should be forced to incubate a child. I think that embryos should be removed with an attempt to save their life. I believe that this would expand our capabilities and bring real choice to women rather than the choice of incubate or kill.

My question to you is what is different about her embryos than that of every other woman except that she had them implanted? Should there be special rules for implanted women .. perhaps. But women discover their pregnant with children they don't believe they can afford to have everyday. What about those embryos? Are you concerned about them at the "public teat" as well? Should those women be forced to incubate a child they neither want or can afford?

Simple question irrespective of anything else about this woman.

 

[Cancel10]

I still see the contradictions in the so-called pro-life position. .. and I still see the stupidity of suggesting I'm out to grow people that fit my ideology. I don't care how mask that, it's stupid.

You have yet to explain this supposed "inconsistency."

How precisely does being pro-life conflict with being critical of blatant irresponsibility? No, a million times NO, I wouldn't have wanted her to get an abortion; all I want is her to take responsibility for her own decisions. Why is that so much to ask for? I am also pro-business, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of government bailouts. Perhaps in your parallel universe this is an inconsistency, but in the real, grown-up world it is not.

Rather than allowing reality to shape your views of the world, you force reality to conform to your predetermined conclusions. But it doesn't work that way my friend.

 

[Socrtease]

Thank god she had them though God would not have wanted her to reduce the number before birth. Although it appears that God did not want her to have kids in the first place. But I am splitting hairs.

 

[Cancel7]

A monumentall stupid .. no, make that monumentally IGNORANT response coming from you.

"... so I can grow the demographic thelives off the public teat" .. excuse me sir, but I support a womans' right to choose. Reconcile that truth with your utterly ridiculous and cartoonish assertion and see what you come up with. Now I'm GROWING socialists. Stupid.

And how you get I want to dismiss what I don't think is important is even more ignorant than your other stupid assertion. Perhaps you haven't noticed but I don't post in every thread. Threads about things I believe unimportant I DON"T POST IN.

Your problem is that I ridicule "issues" like this .. which I believe is important to do. It's a fucking stretch to even call this an issue.

What I've come to realize over the course of my life is that Americans would always rather talk about some idiotic media-created distraction rather than deal with tough issues. I'm simply pointing out this is that media-created distraction .. that's my opinion and if you don't agree with it, fine. I can live with that.

But it's a bit beneath you to start accusing me of "growing people" to suit what you think my ideology is, of which you have no clue obviously .. when in fact, I support the right of this woman to have aborted those embryos if she chose to do so. Would it not be those who insist a woman have a child who could be more correctly accused of "growing people?" .. you know, like you. Do you support this woman's right to have aborted these embryos? Yet you want to lecture me about what?

Perhaps you haven't had your coffee yet .. but wake the fuck up.

"it's a fucking stretch to even call this an issue"

There you go! That's right. And that's what our entire society is brainwashed into believing - that this is an "issue".

It's an anomaly, it's unimportant, it doesn't matter, it has zero effect on anything, children go to bed hungry every night in this country, children are abused every day in this country, and that's what the fixation on this celebrity-wannabe that our celebrity-obsessed culture seizes on, keeps you from talking about or caring about.

It's stupid. I'm not surprised that cons are all over this. Their speciality is searching out stupid distractions that don't matter, and will never matter, to ensure that no attention falls upon that which does matter.

 

[blackascoal]

You have yet to explain this supposed "inconsistency."

How precisely does being pro-life conflict with being critical of blatant irresponsibility? No, a million times NO, I wouldn't have wanted her to get an abortion; all I want is her to take responsibility for her own decisions. Why is that so much to ask for? I am also pro-business, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of government bailouts. Perhaps in your parallel universe this is an inconsistency, but in the real, grown-up world it is not.

Rather than allowing reality to shape your views of the world, you force reality to conform to your predetermined conclusions. But it doesn't work that way my friend.

Here, let me give you a personal invitation ..

Beyond the irresponsible corporate action, had she decided after being implanted that she had bitten off more than she could chew, would you support her having an abortion? I ask because that's what happens quite often after a woman finds out she's pregnant.

I ask because THAT is reality, not some woman of questionable intelligence being implanted with 8 embryos. A woman discovering she's pregnant when she didn't want to be IS the norm that happens everyday in America. YET, once born, pro-lifers take no responsibility for their demand that an unwanted child be born. I've always found it odd that the same people screaming for the births of unwanted children are the same people screaming about welfare, aid to children, headstrart, and every other program designed to help needy children .. as it seems that pro-lifers are the same ones here screaming about having to take care of these children.

I'm less concerned about anomalies than I am the norm.

And yes, I used this media-created circus to make a further point about a woman's right to choose.

 

[Damocles]

How do I shut off conversation? Do you consider opposition to a position or even ridicule of a position "shutting off conversation?"

I don't.

You attempt to shut it off by using mockery for others who take time to talk about it. You suggest that your pet topic has more value.

If you believe what you're saying, stop being a pussy. Say what you believe regardless of what someone else may think. That's what I do.



I fully understand what this is about and I completely understand this woman of questionable capacity had the embryos implanted. I get that .. and I still see the contradictions in the so-called pro-life position. .. and I still see the stupidity of suggesting I'm out to grow people that fit my ideology. I don't care how mask that, it's stupid.

Except you didn't. You tried to make this some argument about abortion, it isn't.

I ask you again, who determines what the proper number should be?

Which government agency controls the children you can adopt?

Dude, I'm not your daddy. I'm not telling you anything, I'm voicing my OPINION.

Beyond the irresponsible corporate action, had she decided after being implanted that she had bitten off more than she could chew, would you support her having an abortion? I ask because that's what happens quite often after a woman finds out she's pregnant.

What part of, "I do not support forcing women to be incubators" means what you try to pretend I mean?

Did you miss this part .. "Your problem is that I ridicule "issues" like this .. which I believe is important to do."

The part where you find unimportant topics "important" at the same time. I ridicule people who clearly misunderstood the original concept of the conversation and misapplied a straw man argument about a different topic to me.

As I've said, I see this as a media-created distraction that will soon go away and be replaced by another media-created distraction. I'm just having fun with what I see as contradictions brother.

It is interesting to see "pro-lifers" referring to things now children as "embryos" instead of unborn people. I guess what they are depends on the story you're trying to tell.

You see contradictions because you misunderstand the topic at hand, which is not abortion.

My question to you is what is different about her embryos than that of every other woman except that she had them implanted? Should there be special rules for implanted women .. perhaps. But women discover their pregnant with children they don't believe they can afford to have everyday. What about those embryos? Are you concerned about them at the "public teat" as well? Should those women be forced to incubate a child they neither want or can afford?

The same thing that is different with children that are adopted. One has gone to extreme measures to create and implant the children, we should maintain a bit of logic and reason. "Can this person in fact care for the children?" should be the first question asked, just as we ask somebody who is adopting. There is no reason to implant if they don't meet a minimum of capacity.

Simple question irrespective of anything else about this woman.

One more time for the unpleasantly purposefully disingenuous. I do not support forcing women to incubate children. (Please re-read this past sentence and you can then pretend my opinion and ignore it again later building a huge strawman based on what you clearly believed to be the topic.) I believe that embryos should be removed with the intent and attempt to incubate ex-utero. This will, in fact, create REAL choice for women in the future rather than the hideous choice to kill or be forced to incubate.

 

[blackascoal]

You attempt to shut it off by using mockery for others who take time to talk about it. You suggest that your pet topic has more value.



Except you didn't. You tried to make this some argument about abortion, it isn't.


Which government agency controls the children you can adopt?



What part of, "I do not support forcing women to be incubators" means what you try to pretend I mean?



The part where you find unimportant topics "important" at the same time. I ridicule people who clearly misunderstood the original concept of the conversation and misapplied a straw man argument about a different topic to me.



You see contradictions because you misunderstand the topic at hand, which is not abortion.



The same thing that is different with children that are adopted. One has gone to extreme measures to create and implant the children, we should maintain a bit of logic and reason. "Can this person in fact care for the children?" should be the first question asked, just as we ask somebody who is adopting. There is no reason to implant if they don't meet a minimum of capacity.



One more time for the unpleasantly purposefully disingenuous. I do not support forcing women to incubate children. (Please re-read this past sentence and you can then pretend my opinion and ignore it again later building a huge strawman based on what you clearly believed to be the topic.) I believe that embryos should be removed with the intent and attempt to incubate ex-utero. This will, in fact, create REAL choice for women in the future rather than the hideous choice to kill or be forced to incubate.

I have no clue what you mean by "forcing women to incubate children." "Pro-lifers" aren't just forcing the women to incubate children, they're forcing them to have and raise them, sometimes forcing society to raise them.

All the question required, do you support the right to abort unwanted children, was a yes or no answer .. but I'm not sure it's even worth re-asking.

Do you have an anti-mockery rule here on the board? .. if not, too bad my mockery bothers you .. just too damn bad.

This bullshit is a media-created anomaly .. which is not to suggest that mean ol' me is trying to stop you having a conversation about this bullshit.

I'm just having fun .. with bullshit.

 

[Damocles]

I have no clue what you mean by "forcing women to incubate children." "Pro-lifers" aren't just forcing the women to incubate children, they're forcing them to have and raise them, sometimes forcing society to raise them.

Well, I know the concept is difficult. But pretend you can comprehend ideas outside of the normal box you try to put them in. I do not think women should be forced to carry babies, yet I also do not think abortion is the best solution.

All the question required, do you support the right to abort unwanted children, was a yes or no answer .. but I'm not sure it's even worth re-asking.

It isn't a "yes or no" answer, if you'd bother to read what I said you would have your answer.

I think women should be allowed to have the embryo removed from their body, but I do not think we should try to kill them, we should instead try to save them. It's not a hard concept, you just pretend it is because it doesn't fit inside your weak strawman you tried to saddle me with.

Do you have an anti-mockery rule here on the board? .. if not, too bad my mockery bothers you .. just too damn bad.

No, and your mockery doesn't bother me. I just find it amusing that you find the topic "unimportant", yet it is enough to post 70 kagillion times like it is important...

This bullshit is a media-created anomaly .. which is not to suggest that mean ol' me is trying to stop you having a conversation about this bullshit.

I'm just having fun .. with bullshit.

It was not difficult to see that you had no idea what you were talking about, especially when you started spouting off on how much you support her right to kill the embryos she paid to implant.

 

[TexasMeg]

BTW, this is the true cause for the rise in autism.

You really have NO knowledge of ASD. I shouldn't even let something as asinine as your statement get to me, but your ignorance is truly astounding. Until you have spent some time researching it, been in a room full of children afflicted with it, and sat on a waiting list for a year to get a child the therapy he needs only to have it NOT be covered by medical insurance, please keep idiotic comments like that to yourself.