June 06, 2019

“Sugar daddy” site founder to pay for out of state abortions

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

Brandon Wade, founder of a “sugar daddy website,” says that after being motivated by the recent restrictions in Alabama, he will be starting a new charity that pays for both the cost of travel and the cost of the abortion for women who have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy.

Wade’s website SeekingArrangements connects “sugar babies” to “sugar daddies or mommas” to find “mutually beneficial relationships,” and according to its site, has 10 million members

Wade said he will call his charity “Fight Against Poverty,” and cited the statistic that 17% of people in Alabama live below the poverty level to demonstrate the need for what he plans to do saying, without an ounce of self-awareness, that Alabama’s limiting of abortion to before the detection of a fetal heartbeat is “designed to hurt the weakest and the poorest amongst us.”

If Wade wanted to help young people get out of poverty, we should shutter his digital pimping business and stop encouraging the behaviors that lead to divorce.

As noted in the National Review, in 2017,

“Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill have identified the “success sequence,” through which young adults who follow three steps — getting at least a high-school degree, then working full time, and then marrying before having any children, in that order — are very unlikely to become poor. In fact, 97 percent of Millennials who have followed the success sequence are not in poverty by the time they reach the ages of 28 to 34. ..The formula even works for young adults who have faced heavier odds, such as Millennials who grew up poor, or black Millennials.”

According to the Independent article penned about Wade’s scheme, he “plans to donate between $500,000 and $1m to the charity initially” and will take part in its fundraising. He said the charity ties in with SeekingArrangement’s goal of letting people make their own choices and improve their lives.

Alabama doesn’t need in lectures in morality from the defacto mayor of the online version of Sodom and Gomorrah, a man who made his money facilitating human misery and the dissolution of innocent children’s families.

But in reality, as is becoming increasingly the case these days, Wade is so deranged by the right doing so much winning that he has been driven to our way of thinking. He just doesn’t know it or is too frenzied to see it, although, not with regard to being pro-life, not yet at least.

Wade is admitting that charity and helping others — if you can call what he is doing “charity” — is better done by the individual, rather than the state.

Someone else is stepping up to pay for abortions instead of obligating the unwilling taxpayer to do so. Though not ideal for me as a pro-life woman, this seems like a big step in the right direction, albeit taken by a gross person who does gross and immoral things for a living.

The pro-lifers have been saying for years we don't want to pay for abortions. Wade thinks he is teaching pro-lifers a lesson by giving us what we asked for!

This is as clueless as the feminist left’s “sex strike,” meant to punish Republicans for enacting stronger abortion restrictions by promising not to continue to engage in the sorts of casual sex that leads to unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Again, giving us what we have asked for!

What’s next? Are these feminist kooks going to try trick the patriarchy into supporting them for life by getting married young, having a bunch of children together, staying home to raise them and staying married till the day they die?

If the Left keeps going like this, it’s going to be a Beaver Cleaver world out there by 2020.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-06-10 02:29:16 -0400
Abortion should only be allowed if the woman’s life or health is at risk,and not as a ‘convenience’. At the very least if the woman (or couple) want it done for convenience sake, then they should pay for it out their own pocket and not have the tax-payer pay for it. How about using protection like condoms or the pill? As for rape situation,as heinous as that is, the victim can still have the child and give it for adoption. The baby did not ask to be conceived. Other than the woman’s life or health being at risk, there is no real reason to have an abortion in this day and age.
commented 2019-06-07 11:07:42 -0400
How twisted can this world run by Satan get?
How debauched and depraved can Satan’s minions be?
How can we go on and not even see…the ugly truth?
How much further must we fall…before we will be free?
I’m alive in here, please don’t murder me…
commented 2019-06-07 02:49:40 -0400
Good, let them pay for their own views, sound good to me.
commented 2019-06-07 02:48:31 -0400
Robert Dunning under the law he is criticizing they have time to get one.
commented 2019-06-07 00:57:35 -0400
Rebelation….Hhhmmm…….. interesting take, very interesting!
commented 2019-06-06 21:23:17 -0400

The problem is the slippery slope. Once you start, how do you stop it ending up right back where we are today? And as to rape, well, women are so spoiled, so used to getting their way, can you imagine how the number of rape claims would suddenly go through the roof?

So if you want that option for rape victims, you’d have to start by going after women that make false accusations. Good luck with that in this society!
commented 2019-06-06 18:04:11 -0400
not a chance rebel. rape and incest in forcing girls to give babies is the immoral sickening part of the equation. adoption be damned. once i would like to have the fathers opinion on abortion or not, but saying no abortion unless mothers health is at stake is barbaric.