[Dataman]

Pity liberals with children. It must frost them that they would be so much better off, economically, if they'd had a "choice" instead of the child....

Absolutely not! I reserve pity for those whose unfortunate circumstances are beyond their control.

Libs have sacrificed their children on the altar of Molech since 1973 and are just beginning to wake up to the reality that they have been aborting their voter base. I think abortion may be the major reason why the decision to spend lots of money raising a child is so difficult: Why should a lib spend big bux on something they could have aborted for $500? The kid is lucky to be alive and should be grateful.

[BibChr]

Ah, no, my friend; you're trapped in that logical thinking of yours. Liberals have no such constraints. Don't you understand? There is no continuity. If they abort it, it never was a child. Like Clark says, it isn't a child until the mother chooses. So an aborted thing never was a child, and a child never was a candidate for abortion.

"But, but," you splutter. "That makes no sense!"

Ex act ly. It's magic. It doesn't have to make sense.

Dan