Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

177
Letters
Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:00 AM

The economics of abortion

In Minnesota, more women are citing the costs of children in their decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Should we be surprised?

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:20 AM

Give all unwanted babies to the state for 18 years

Yeah sure life is all sacred and shit but let's see what the psychotard Christians think when millions upon millions of unwanted children are supported on their public dime until adulthood. You will see those morons running to enact new pro abortion laws like they were being chased by lions.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:20 AM

Women off the hook YET AGAIN

Let's reiterate the happenings of the past eight years. Evil Dubya was put into power DESPITE being suspected of harboring ill will towards the nation (ample evidence of his cronyism was in the media at the time). It was WOMEN who thought the stronger candidate was Bullshista-- they wanted someone who projected brute strength-- they voted him into power.

Of course evil will do what evil will do, and he proceeded with initiating his War Against The Planet, beginning with allowing the CIA to stage 9/11 as a pretext to locking down the world's SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES, in Iraq, and THUS inflating the market to assinine proportions (as we see this very day). Anyone remeber thos SECRET energy meetings a few years ago? What do you all think THAT was about but PRECISELY what we see today in the markets.

Of course, women not paying attention to the chicanery of the first Cabal Term RESELECTED Bullshie yet AGAIN in 2004.

TODAY we read an article abotu women moaning that prices are too high to raise kids.

WHEN will you women begin to take control of the world situation and PREVENT yourselves from being fooled by evil hooligans with ILL INTENT against the people of this nation?

Sure, men voted for Bush too, but it was women who were taken by his 'show' (and it WAS a show) of strength.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:21 AM

Women's rights

A woman is allowed to kill children or fetuses with little or no consequences to themselves.

Or, a woman can force a man to subsidize her life for 18 years (23 in MA)by having a baby, with the backing of the state and federal governments.

The man forced to subsidize her lifestyle may or may not be genetically related to the baby.

Great system. Is it any wonder that men are no longer interested in marriage (=slavery) or that children in America are secondary to women when it comes to family life in this country?

Let's keep subsidizing single mothers and paying for juvenile programs. That's the feminist way.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:31 AM

You know what else is unfair Parson JIm

Just because you're a woman, your own body can kill the fetus and you have absolutely nothing to say about it.

And when your body kills your baby it could also kill you in the process.

I hope that you as an anti-feminist will battle to the bitter end to keep women from enjoying yet another totally unfair advantage of being women.

I think men should be able to enjoy the physical danger of pregnancy too.

As an anti-feminist I hope you will campaign to endanger the lives of men with life threatening cases of gestational diabetes when one of their DNA-certified offspring is in the process of being built in some woman's womb.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:33 AM

In fact Parson Jim you should not rest

until the rate of death and disability from pregnancy complications is equal for men and women.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:36 AM

Right

Economics or no economics, that should still be her choice.

And that is exactly what the anti-choice people object to, and why they fight so hard against it. In their view, it should not be her choice. Once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has the freedom to decide how her life should go. Her fate is sealed, and it's her damn fault for being such a slut in the first place.

It's just that sort of pseudo-slavery talk that's always made me glad I got pregnant back when it was not difficult to obtain an abortion. Planned Parenthood was still a respected organization, and the crazies had only just started to come out of the woodwork. I would not be a young woman now for any money.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:42 AM

"I think men should be able to enjoy the physical danger of pregnancy too."

They already do. They have to live with a pregnant woman for 9 months. Hey-yo!

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:44 AM

Okay, I'm Confused

I swear I'm living on a different planet. I can walk two blocks to the drug store and get condoms. I can frigging order condoms online. I can go on the Pill. I can be abstininte (not saying this is most people's preferred method, but it will certainly avoid pregnancy.) If the condom breaks, there's a Morning After Pill that can be perscribed within, I believe, 48 to 72 hours.

All of this information is out there. It's common place. At this point, it's almost common sense.

So here's the humdinger of a question: why are women still needing abortions? The option should be there, but why are still so many women taking advantage of it? Especially if they KNOWN they're hitting hard economic times, wouldn't a condom be a far better investment than a pricer abortion?

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:45 AM

Until the day

women die during childbirth in the SAME numbers men died during WWII saving YOUR asses, you should be ASHAMED as hell to even make such a comparison.

I think men should be able to enjoy the physical danger of pregnancy too.

Reprehensible, but what to expect from FEMINISTS?

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:45 AM

Makes sense

I am not ready to be a mother, period, but even if I did have a change of heart it would be very difficult to afford a kid right now. I'm college-educated and in a decent job with very good benefits and in a stable relationship with someone who also makes decent money, but I really doubt we could afford to live on a single income or pay for child care. And I understand I'm in a privileged position. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can afford that loss of income, much less all the other additional expenses.

Thursday, July 3, 2008 08:50 AM

I've never understood this PSEUDO argument

Once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has the freedom to decide how her life should go. Her fate is sealed, and it's her damn fault for being such a slut in the first place.

Once a MAN is 18, HE no longer has the freedom to decide how HIS life should go [CLUE: men and men ONLY are FORCED to sign up for selective service to save YOUR asses] HIS fate is sealed, and it's HIS damn fault for being SO PENIS LADEN in the first place.

Here is ANOTHER one:

Once a PERSON is a MURDERER, she/he no longer has the freedom to decide how her/his life should go. Her/his fate is sealed, and it's her/his damn fault for being such a MURDERER in the first place.

Feminists arguments make no sense. But what to expect from women-- too selfish, too hyper entitled, too spoiled, too irresponsible. Men would not be able to pull such shit that women get away with.

You have FOURTEEN+ forms of birth control women. USE some of them. I only WISH, every evening, men had a birth control pill.

Most Active Letters Threads

725

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
252

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon