Comments on: Mississippi’s Only Abortion Clinic Survives, For Now

By: Disgusted with gop

Disgusted with gop — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:58:40 +0000

Just like people who aren’t ready to have babies shouldn’t have sex…. hmmm there’s an idea! Seems to me that would be the “responsible” thing to do! Posted by: Sarah | July 2, 2012, 4:38 pm

Seems to me you are about two thousand years too late with you ‘sex for procreation only’ idea. Your brand of insanity went out long, long ago. Here’s a thought you’d love: make people get PERMITS to have sex, and make those permits available only to heterosexual married people who are financially and emotionally capable of raising kids. Wouldn’t that be grand? We could even end unemployment tomorrow with this idea, because we would have to hire millions of people as ‘bedroom monitors’ to make sure that people without permits aren’t having sex. Shall I sign you up?

By: Disgusted with gop

Disgusted with gop — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:50:31 +0000

“Their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb,” Bryant told conservative radio host Tony Perkins in April.

Wow. A GOVERNOR making a statement like this. No wonder the Deep South is considered the joke of the country and barely half a step above a third world nation. With “leaders” like this. What this arse failed to say is, once these ‘children’ exit the birth canal, they’re on their own in Mississippi. Kill or be killed. Sink or swim. The state doesn’t care one damn bit about them once they’re out. But they will pass legislation to make sure THEY control what their women can and cannot do with their own bodies. As one of their lawmakers named Bubba (yes, that is his real name) said about this new law, ‘I know the opposition will say that women will now have to use coat hangers on themselves to have an abortion, but we decided that we have to do the moral thing here, we had to stand up for morality.’ So in Mississippi, the “moral” thing according to the Republicans is to let women perform abortions on themselves, possibly ending any chance at future children or even ending their own lives. That is the “moral” thing to do. Welcome to the Deep South.

By: Charleston2

Charleston2 — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:43:01 +0000

Romney must be glad the clinc wasn’t closed. He is heavily invested in a company called Stericycle that disposes of aborted fetuses. That’s right, Romney profits from abortions. The conservative candidate for president, Mitt Romney profits from abortions.

By: Facts Matter

Facts Matter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:49:59 +0000

Haha, the comments here are laughable! People are so ridiculously ignorant that they think a zygote is a baby! That’s hilarious!

No wonder MS is the worst state in the Union when they keep on attacking women’s rights. We need to fight back against these fundamentalists.

By: Yup I said it

Yup I said it — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:03:37 +0000

with limited resources you grandaughters granddaughter will be forced by the government to have an abortion because the government apparently gets to tell a women whether or not she is going to keep a pregnancy or not.—–======== very interesting and valid point. Brings to mind Major Butler during civil war. He declared slaves as ‘contraband’ so any slave that escaped was ‘kept’ contrary to dred scott. Word of this spread like wildfire and within a month of the first three slaves to escaped to his fort, thousands more escaped and he ‘kept’ them. Other commanders in other union forts did the same. by the time the Emmancipation Proclaimation was made three years the price of a slave was a tiny fraction of it’s former worth the day before Butler said slaves were property, so therefore, he will take that property if it is being used to the fight the war. It’s so incredibly ironic because the south seceded from the union to keep their slaves and they started the war in order to keep their slaves and they were the ones who said slaves were property, but had they not started the war, Bulter would have no reason to confiscate slaves and once that happened the emancipation really began en masses. Perfect example of taking foolish steps toward one goal without foresight into how that can be used against your position in the future. YOu claim the government can tell a girl she MUST have a baby against her will, then the government in the future, with climate change, scare water, scare financial resources, can then tell a girl she MUST abort, or even, physically force her to. This already happens in China. Once you give government the power over reproductive right of women, you can’t take them back and say “no ! no! We WANTED babies born!” Too bad. That’s not what the precedence means. It means government owns women’s reproductive rights and tell them what to do with their bodies. I can definitely see the tables being turned on that eventually…..

By: Marsha Marsha

Marsha Marsha — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:48:43 +0000

maybe 200 years from now with limited resources you grandaughters granddaughter will be forced by the government to have an abortion because the government apparently gets to tell a women whether or not she is going to keep a pregnancy or not.———-Yikes!!! Good point!!! Beware of a precedent once it’s set!!!! That i a GOOD POINT! WOW! Why haven’t I heard that before because that is so true!!!! IF the government has the right to tell you MUST keep a pregnancy, then they can have the power to tell you must END ONE as well. wow! That is true!!

By: Not UR Average Joe

Not UR Average Joe — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:41:56 +0000

refraining from premarital sex —yeah, how’d that work for the priests??? how’s sexual repression working for strict muslim societies? Have you read the studies on places where sexual repression goes hand in hand with sexual abuse and violence, especially toward women.??? sex is a drive, so is love, like hunger. You’ll have as much chance success with saying ‘no sex’ as.. well, anyone, has had in saying “no sex’. IT is the one theory that always, always, always fails, and not just a little.

By: Not UR Average Joe

Not UR Average Joe — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:39:19 +0000

no sex of any kind before marriage—its like dont eat pork, or meats need to be kosher or cows are sacred —whatever you religious freakish beliefs, fine. It’s a free country. if that’s what you believe, fine. But it has no place in law, or what you try to make the laws do. It’s beyond wacked that people in red states are trying to force their religion on others. Goes against the entire premise of ‘free country’ and freedom of religion. Someone’s religious viewpoint says abortion is fine, then that’s the end of it. Their religion is not your religion, then mind your own business and dont try to make her keep the baby if you dont want someone later saying you must have abortion. IT goes both ways. What if someone says poor people or unintelligent people must not breed. you either respect someone’s right to choose to have a child … or not. Because times change and who knows, maybe 200 years from now with limited resources you grandaughters granddaughter will be forced by the government to have an abortion because the government apparently gets to tell a women whether or not she is going to keep a pregnancy or not.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:38:46 +0000

No, refraining from premarital sex means just that, no sex of any kind before marriage

POSTED BY: KATE | JULY 2, 2012, 6:17 PM 6:17 PM

Kate your superstitious beliefs regarding whether or not unmarried people can have sex are just that – your superstitious beliefs.

I think everybody (including the people affected) would prefer the use of contraception over abortion as a birth control technique.

This is what is excellent about the Affordable Care Act – contraception is covered – hence fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions.

By: kate

kate — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:17:32 +0000

@ Marsha

No, refraining from premarital sex means just that, no sex of any kind before marriage. It’s called self control. Try it sometime.