The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on January 01, 2011, 09:17:15 PM

Title: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Freeper on January 01, 2011, 09:17:15 PM
Quote
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-01-11 08:52 PM
Original message
Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
   
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 09:02 PM by GoneOffShore
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02babymaking...

Story today in the NYT magazine about a couple who now have two children through the use of an egg donor - the Fairy Goddonor - two surrogates and multiple fertility treatments.

All I could think of was "selfish" and "adoption".

Mrs GoS and I have never wanted children so we don't get that impulse. We have adopted shelter cats and if we wanted a dog we would have gone the same way. Yes, I know that a puppy or a kitten is not a child, but still, why must one go to such extremes, spend so much money and go through the sturm und drang of finding donors, surrogates, etc, when adoption, even with the obstacles cited, is still an option?

Probably better that the author of the piece didn't get a puppy, because she would have bought from a breeder rather than getting a shelter dog.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x103372

For being pro choice you sure seem quite interested in running other people's lives.
I also can't help but ask how many kids you adopted since you think they are selfish for not doing so.

Quote
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-01-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Selfish" and "adoption" get my votes, too. n/t

How many have you adopted?

Quote
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-01-11 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh, God, not this judgmental shit again.   Updated at 6:40 PM
   
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 09:33 PM by Warren DeMontague
Jesus. Live your own ****ing life and make your own ****ing decisions. Don't presume to be placed on this Earth to sit in judgment of what other people do. ****.

Enjoy your stay at DU it won't be long.

Now if this couple had aborted a baby, they would be heroes at DUmmyland.

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Evil_Conservative on January 01, 2011, 09:24:06 PM
How does the DUmp feel about Nadya "Octomom" Sullemen.  I'm pretty sure her last name is spelled wrong, but you get the point.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Freeper on January 01, 2011, 09:25:44 PM
How does the DUmp feel about Nadya "Octomom" Sullemen.  I'm pretty sure her last name is spelled wrong, but you get the point.

They hate her. Say she is selfish, destroying the planet, blah blah blah.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Evil_Conservative on January 01, 2011, 09:26:34 PM
They hate her. Say she is selfish, destroying the planet, blah blah blah.


Yeah, but she's on welfare and probably food stamps too.  In Nancy Pelosi's perfect world, she is helping the economy.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Freeper on January 01, 2011, 09:31:22 PM
Yeah, but she's on welfare and probably food stamps too.  In Nancy Pelosi's perfect world, she is helping the economy.

Even though she is helping to boost the economy, she made the wrong choice by having all those kids and not having a doctor suck their brains out and throw the remains in the trash.


I found this thread where they think she needs to pay back all the benefits from book deals etc.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,22221.msg255553/highlight,nadya.html#msg255553

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Evil_Conservative on January 01, 2011, 09:44:57 PM
Even though she is helping to boost the economy, she made the wrong choice by having all those kids and not having a doctor suck their brains out and throw the remains in the trash.


I found this thread where they think she needs to pay back all the benefits from book deals etc.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,22221.msg255553/highlight,nadya.html#msg255553



Interesting.

Not really sure what to make of all that.  :rofl:
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Ballygrl on January 01, 2011, 09:56:00 PM
Quote
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Sat Jan-01-11 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh, God, not this judgmental shit again.   Updated at 6:40 PM
   
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 09:33 PM by Warren DeMontague
Jesus. Live your own ****ing life and make your own ****ing decisions. Don't presume to be placed on this Earth to sit in judgment of what other people do. ****.

Quote
Name removed  (0 posts)
Sat Jan-01-11 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
   
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What rule did they break?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Evil_Conservative on January 01, 2011, 10:20:15 PM
What rule did they break?

Common sense.
Speaking the truth.
Using 'God' in the post.
Using 'Jesus' in the post.

Possibly another one.


Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: CactusCarlos on January 01, 2011, 10:31:43 PM
What rule did they break?

Maybe he bathes.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: Chris_ on January 01, 2011, 10:38:26 PM
So, "CHOICE" is only important when the choice is to have an abortion?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: JohnnyReb on January 02, 2011, 12:32:28 AM
Maybe hey wanted to adopt but all the kids had been reserved for hollyweird stars and queers.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: compaqxp on January 02, 2011, 12:38:17 AM
While I don't personally agree with their choice its none of my business and if they can provide for their children then the power to them.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: DefiantSix on January 02, 2011, 01:13:18 AM
Quote
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-01-11 08:52 PM
Original message
Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
   
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 09:02 PM by GoneOffShore
http://www.nytimes.com/20.../02/magazine/02babymaking...

Story today in the NYT magazine about a gay couple who now have two children through the use of an egg donor - the Fairy Goddonor - two surrogates and multiple fertility treatments.

All I could think of was "selfish" and "adoption".

Mrs GoS and I have never wanted children so we don't get that impulse... blah blah blah blah blah...

Listen DUmbshit, would you still be thinking "selfish" if the writer inserted just that one little word in red into his article?

That's right; now shut your prissy ass up. :bigbird:
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2011, 01:22:08 AM
Quote
Story today in the NYT magazine about a couple who now have two children through the use of an egg donor - the Fairy Goddonor - two surrogates and multiple fertility treatments.

All I could think of was "selfish" and "adoption".


Yet it's perfectly ok by Liberal standards when a gay or lesbian couple does the same thing.

Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: MrsSmith on January 02, 2011, 05:38:56 AM
Not just any puppy, but a shelter rescue puppy only.  Another example of the "tolerant, loving" liberals forcing their opinions upon the world.   :whatever:  But somehow, in lib speak, conservatives are the judgmental ones?????   :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: true_blood on January 02, 2011, 11:36:23 AM
Quote
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-01-11 08:52 PM
Original message
Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 09:02 PM by GoneOffShore
http://www.nytimes.com/20.../02/magazine/02babymaking...

Story today in the NYT magazine about a couple who now have two children through the use of an egg donor - the Fairy Goddonor - two surrogates and multiple fertility treatments.
All I could think of was "selfish" and "adoption". Mrs GoS and I have never wanted children so we don't get that impulse. We have adopted shelter cats and if we wanted a dog we would have gone the same way. Yes, I know that a puppy or a kitten is not a child, but still, why must one go to such extremes, spend so much money and go through the sturm und drang of finding donors, surrogates, etc, when adoption, even with the obstacles cited, is still an option?
Probably better that the author of the piece didn't get a puppy, because she would have bought from a breeder rather than getting a shelter dog.
Wow. This is what the DUmmies want to associate themselves with? :mental:
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2011, 04:56:59 AM
Wow. This is what the DUmmies want to associate themselves with? :mental:

What do you expect from idiots who refer to people who have children as "breeders"?
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: GOBUCKS on January 03, 2011, 11:55:27 AM
Quote
Probably better that the author of the piece didn't get a puppy, because she would have bought from a breeder rather than getting a shelter dog.

It's great when the DUmp's trailer park genes surface in print. It's just so much better to have a mongrel (we used to call them "alley dogs") than a purebred dog. Of course, a purebred dog is okay with democrat DUmmies if it's a slow greyhound or a cowardly pit bull. Rejects, just like the DUmmies.
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: true_blood on January 03, 2011, 12:05:51 PM
It's great when the DUmp's trailer park genes surface in print. It's just so much better to have a mongrel (we used to call them "alley dogs") than a purebred dog. Of course, a purebred dog is okay with democrat DUmmies if it's a slow greyhound or a cowardly pit bull. Rejects, just like the DUmmies.
:-) :lmao:
Title: Re: Shouldn't they have gotten a puppy instead?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on January 03, 2011, 12:12:37 PM
Speaking of trailer parks, it does seem like it would have been a whole lot simpler to just move into one and get the divorcee next door pregnant, the end result is about the same as egg-donor-plus-surrogate.

 :popcorn: