Donald Trump running for president

abortion sees to be back in the news...I just watched on youtube a 2nd trimester procedure-that is barbaric. now I heard some democrat is proposing legalizing abortion up to day of birth.....


there are too many ways to prevent pregnancy and if a unwanted pregnancy is discovered there is a pill for this too.


I hope one day future generations will look back at abortions and condemn them as the barbaric act they are.
 
thebigt said:
abortion sees to be back in the news...I just watched on youtube a 2nd trimester procedure-that is barbaric. now I heard some democrat is proposing legalizing abortion up to day of birth.....


there are too many ways to prevent pregnancy and if a unwanted pregnancy is discovered there is a pill for this too.


I hope one day future generations will look back at abortions and condemn them as the barbaric act they are.
Click to expand...
Show me a proposed bill that allows abortions up to the day of birth? Let’s not take what one random moron says and pretend it’s actually relevant.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I get what you're saying, but don't know if I'm willing to write off all business-type approaches. I'd like to see somebody run things like a business that actually make financial sense or somebody that understands what might work for a private business, doesn't always carryover into the political world. Like your example of "free" education. Free education for a country means other people are forced to pay for it against their will. Free education for a company means the cost is either at the expense of the owner or the consumers, but both of those have a choice.
Click to expand...

kamala harris and several other key democrats want to do away with private insurance in favor of 'medicare for all'.
 
thebigt said:
tran of virginia….I aint making this stuff up
Click to expand...
So it still seems to say that any third-trimester abortion would require a doctor saying that the pregnancy threatened the life or health of the mother. Now what exactly that means I do not know, but that’s how the law currently is, this bill would just cut the number of doctors who have to say this from a doctor and two consulting physicians down to only one doctor. Nothing in the bill is actually allowing abortions to be conducted later than normal, but it may make it easier for someone to get permission from one doctor than three.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So it still seems to say that any third-trimester abortion would require a doctor saying that the pregnancy threatened the life or health of the mother. Now what exactly that means I do not know, but that’s how the law currently is, this bill would just cut the number of doctors who have to say this from a doctor and two consulting physicians down to only one doctor. Nothing in the bill is actually allowing abortions to be conducted later than normal, but it may make it easier for someone to get permission from one doctor than three.
Click to expand...


do you know what a abortion entails after 20 weeks, it is truly barbaric.


non-doctors in nyc are now allowed to do abortions!!!
 
thebigt said:
do you know what a abortion entails after 20 weeks, it is truly barbaric.


non-doctors in nyc are now allowed to do abortions!!!
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post? Nothing regarding the time period of abortions is changing in the proposed bill, only that it requires less doctors to claim its for the health of the mother. Your point, while fair in general, has nothin to do with this bill. Neither does what’s being done in a different state than the bill. You’re moving the goalposts man.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Did you even read my post? Nothing regarding the time period of abortions is changing in the proposed bill, only that it requires less doctors to claim its for the health of the mother. Your point, while fair in general, has nothin to do with this bill. Neither does what’s being done in a different state than the bill. You’re moving the goalposts man.
Click to expand...

maybe....I guess I wasn't aware how messed up the current law is.

abortion is like drunk driving, there really is no excuse for it....

I make exception for womans health late term, but even for rape no reason to wait late term to do it.
 
thebigt said:
maybe....I guess I wasn't aware how messed up the current law is.

abortion is like drunk driving, there really is no excuse for it....

I make exception for womans health late term, but even for rape no reason to wait late term to do it.
Click to expand...
Late term abortion, yes. But depending on the context of a rape, it’s possible the rapist threatened the victim and kept them from coming forward sooner. I can’t tell a rape victim that they have to have the child of their rapist, especially if it’s incestual, because they were threatened and couldn’t come forward very early.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Late term abortion, yes. But depending on the context of a rape, it’s possible the rapist threatened the victim and kept them from coming forward sooner. I can’t tell a rape victim that they have to have the child of their rapist, especially if it’s incestual, because they were threatened and couldn’t come forward very early.
Click to expand...

now you are cherry picking...of course there are exceptions to everything.
 
thebigt said:
now you are cherry picking...of course there are exceptions to everything. but as a general practice unless it is truly health risk for mother, late term abortions are barbaric, imo.
Click to expand...
And I agree. I’m just saying that that there are exceptions that should be accounted for in the law. :)
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Late term abortion, yes. But depending on the context of a rape, it’s possible the rapist threatened the victim and kept them from coming forward sooner. I can’t tell a rape victim that they have to have the child of their rapist, especially if it’s incestual, because they were threatened and couldn’t come forward very early.
Click to expand...

If someone is raped you can also say they had the responsibility to take a pregnancy test way before the 20 week mark. It only makes sense to want to know as horrible as the situation already is.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
And I agree. I’m just saying that that there are exceptions that should be accounted for in the law. :)
Click to expand...

if only we were writing the law..

the problem is when exceptions are wrote into laws it leaves them open to interpretation by clever attorneys...unfortunately the attorneys interpreting laws are 'almost' without exception more clever than those writing laws. it is a catch 22, exceptions must be included, imo.
 
ax1 said:
If someone is raped you can also say they had the responsibility to take a pregnancy test way before the 20 week mark. It only makes sense to want to know as horrible as the situation already is.
Click to expand...
I never said they didn’t know they were pregnant, only that their rapist may have been threatening them not to tell anyone about it, thus delaying them getting the abortion they wanted to get already. You’re not making sense...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I never said they didn’t know they were pregnant, only that their rapist may have been threatening them not to tell anyone about it, thus delaying them getting the abortion they wanted to get already. You’re not making sense...
Click to expand...

Why do you need to tell anybody you were raped to get a early abortion?
 
lol...equal rights-eh.


I wonder what women would have to say about abortion if men were the ones who got pregnant and they had no say in the matter?
 
Ugh, well this has been coming for a while. Haven't decided how I feel about this tactic yet, but the whole situation sucks. Invalid Link Removed
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Ugh, well this has been coming for a while. Haven't decided how I feel about this tactic yet, but the whole situation sucks. Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

wasn't putin bragging awhile back about his new nukes that could go undetected?

i'm not sure what to make of this either, tbh.
 
thebigt said:
wasn't putin bragging awhile back about his new nukes that could go undetected?

i'm not sure what to make of this either, tbh.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference to me, they wanna blow the world up they can make it happen treaty or no treaty. Nukes are old out of date tech too.
 
ax1 said:
Makes no difference to me, they wanna blow the world up they can make it happen treaty or no treaty. Nukes are old out of date tech too.
Click to expand...

I guess this throw ice cold water on the faces of those who think trump is putin's puppet.
 
thebigt said:
any comment on out of womb 'abortions'?
Click to expand...

Infanticide....Obama's selected Science Advisor John P. Holdren wrote a book about that in the 70's promoting that as a positive to global population control. I knew this was coming.

I have a problem with late term abortions, and partial birth abortions are insane where they let the babies head come out and they snap its neck as a loophole. Not sure of the specifics on "out of womb" abortions but I promise you I dont think I have anything nice to say about it. Its legalized murder.
 
ax1 said:
Infanticide....Obama's selected Science Advisor John P. Holdren wrote a book about that in the 70's promoting that as a positive to global population control. I knew this was coming.

I have a problem with late term abortions, and partial birth abortions are insane where they let the babies head come out and they snap its neck as a loophole. Not sure of the specifics on "out of womb" abortions but I promise you I dont think I have anything nice to say about it. Its legalized murder.
Click to expand...

the dems have gone too far...they better start walking this back or they are in trouble.
 
thebigt said:
wasn't putin bragging awhile back about his new nukes that could go undetected?

i'm not sure what to make of this either, tbh.
Click to expand...

This treaty isn't for missiles that can reach us, only short and intermediate range. Putin's talking about hypersonic missiles and they are indeed worth bragging about since nothing we currently have will stop them.
 
ax1 said:
Infanticide....Obama's selected Science Advisor John P. Holdren wrote a book about that in the 70's promoting that as a positive to global population control. I knew this was coming.

I have a problem with late term abortions, and partial birth abortions are insane where they let the babies head come out and they snap its neck as a loophole. Not sure of the specifics on "out of womb" abortions but I promise you I dont think I have anything nice to say about it. Its legalized murder.
Click to expand...

He didn't say we should kill children. He said there are too many people for the resources we have to remain sustainable and that one of many solutions he offered would be to slow down on growth, so not having so many freaking kids.
 
thebigt said:
I guess this throw ice cold water on the faces of those who think trump is putin's puppet.
Click to expand...

How so? I don't disagree with suspending or pulling out of a treaty that Russia isn't honoring anyway, but that simply gives Trump an easy out and we can start production too. Trump hasn't exactly been shy about pulling out of treaties.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He didn't say we should kill children. He said there are too many people for the resources we have to remain sustainable and that one of many solutions he offered would be to slow down on growth, so not having so many freaking kids.
Click to expand...

I have the original book on PDF format somewhere on a older hard drive in my dungeon collecting mold ....I did go through my old posts and I do know he promoted in his book "Ecoscience" forced sterilization and abortion, polluting the food and water supply with infertility drugs to sterilize the public unknowingly, a global government controlling the globe with an international police force enforcing population control and forced all of the above...

I swore I thought there was mention of infanticide in the book but I cant seem to find the quote but he did promote euthanasia for disabled babies.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
How so? I don't disagree with suspending or pulling out of a treaty that Russia isn't honoring anyway, but that simply gives Trump an easy out and we can start production too. Trump hasn't exactly been shy about pulling out of treaties.
Click to expand...

I think he would say building nukes is creating jobs, anything to boost his economical statistics before Hitlery is running face to face with him in the debates again in 2020. Then Hitlery wins and she can blow up Iran and Russia with them.
 
ax1 said:
I have the original book on PDF format somewhere on a older hard drive in my dungeon collecting mold ....I did go through my old posts and I do know he promoted in his book "Ecoscience" forced sterilization and abortion, polluting the food and water supply with infertility drugs to sterilize the public unknowingly, a global government controlling the globe with an international police force enforcing population control and forced all of the above...

I swore I thought there was mention of infanticide in the book but I cant seem to find the quote but he did promote euthanasia for disabled babies.
Click to expand...

For the sake of this argument, let's just agree that everything you're saying that he said, he actually said. So what? Does he represent all white guys? Does he represent all Democrats? Does he represent all authors? Does he represent all scientists? Or is he one guy with an opinion?
 
ax1 said:
I think he would say building nukes is creating jobs, anything to boost his economical statistics before Hitlery is running face to face with him in the debates again in 2020. Then Hitlery wins and she can blow up Iran and Russia with them.
Click to expand...

Oh it's easier than that because those would be high paying jobs. You just have to create a bunch of short-term, crap pay jobs and cherry pick which statistics you want to present. Then you ignore the dozens of plants closing over here and focus on the one new plant that costs more to the tax payers because of subsidies than the community could ever possibly get back. The magic of job numbers that even Trump himself is on record as saying are fake before he was President. Oh and don't forget to cut regulations so that you can destroy the environment and poison communities, but makes it easy to drive up a number temporarily.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
For the sake of this argument, let's just agree that everything you're saying that he said, he actually said. So what? Does he represent all white guys? Does he represent all Democrats? Does he represent all authors? Does he represent all scientists? Or is he one guy with an opinion?
Click to expand...

He represents nothing but his own opinion and also shows lack of ethical integrity (these people are mass murders anyways) in those specifically who chose to support his appointment to the White House Science Czar. It can also show that those who supported him didnt do their research into his background well which wouldnt be surprising to me including Obama, but Obama far more lacks morality than John P. Holdren anyways since he directly had been involved with mass genocide and torture of children.
 
ax1 said:
He represents nothing but his own opinion and also shows lack of ethical integrity (these people are mass murders anyways) in those specifically who chose to support his appointment to the White House Science Czar. It can also show that those who supported him didnt do their research into his background well which wouldnt be surprising to me including Obama, but Obama far more lacks morality than John P. Holdren anyways since he directly had been involved with mass genocide and torture of children.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I don't understand the view of being against abortion, but cool with slaughtering innocents who happened to make it past the crawling phase.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I agree with that. I don't understand the view of being against abortion, but cool with slaughtering innocents who happened to make it past the crawling phase.
Click to expand...

I don't understand being cool with either.
 
ax1 said:
Infanticide....Obama's selected Science Advisor John P. Holdren wrote a book about that in the 70's promoting that as a positive to global population control. I knew this was coming.

I have a problem with late term abortions, and partial birth abortions are insane where they let the babies head come out and they snap its neck as a loophole. Not sure of the specifics on "out of womb" abortions but I promise you I dont think I have anything nice to say about it. Its legalized murder.
Click to expand...

I think this is why new York passed that bill allowing non-doctors to do abortions--they were afraid doctors would refuse to go as far as the law allows, imo.
 
thebigt said:
I think this is why new York passed that bill allowing non-doctors to do abortions--they were afraid doctors would refuse to go as far as the law allows, imo.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify the bill. PAs can perform surgical abortions. All other medical staff like nurses cannot. They can hand out pills just like a pharmacist can. That said, why would a non-doctor be more willing to do what a doctor wouldn't?
 
ax1 said:
Infanticide....Obama's selected Science Advisor John P. Holdren wrote a book about that in the 70's promoting that as a positive to global population control. I knew this was coming.

I have a problem with late term abortions, and partial birth abortions are insane where they let the babies head come out and they snap its neck as a loophole. Not sure of the specifics on "out of womb" abortions but I promise you I dont think I have anything nice to say about it. Its legalized murder.
Click to expand...

Yet the same people in favor of this stuff we’re outraged about kids in “cages” at the border. Big goofy world we live in.
 
jrock645 said:
Yet the same people in favor of this stuff we’re outraged about kids in “cages” at the border. Big goofy world we live in.
Click to expand...

The same people trying to legislate hard anti-abortion laws to defend the rights of babies and morality as a whole have no problems dropping love bombs on innocent pregnant women in the middle east effectively being directly responsible for aborting babies and slaughtering the mommies and killing 10s of thousands of innocent grown children in multiple non-threatening sovereign nations.

Its all hypocrisy.
 
jrock645 said:
Yet the same people in favor of this stuff we’re outraged about kids in “cages” at the border. Big goofy world we live in.
Click to expand...

Top it off with those outraged about kids being put in "cages" at the border are mostly all genocidal war mongering child slaughtering maniacs too!!!!
 
jrock645 said:
Yet the same people in favor of this stuff we’re outraged about kids in “cages” at the border. Big goofy world we live in.
Click to expand...

And the people not in favor of it put quotation marks around words like cages so they can pretend that they're not as big of hypocrites as the people they're calling out. Goofy indeed.
 
No one wants to abort full-term healthy babies, LOL.

You can't actually think the majority of people want to kill healthy babies? The ONLY reason a baby should be aborted that long into a pregnancy is if it is going to be born with half a brain or die within a few days, or kill the mother in order to be born. Who decides to play god and say that the baby should live and not the mother in that situation?

A baby has ZERO electrical impulses in the brain for the first few weeks as a fetus, let alone normal brain activity for 20-25 WEEKS. Any time after this, the only reason a baby should be aborted is for above stated reasons. You're not god, don't think you have the right to say whether or not a mother should let a parasite live inside her at this point.

Also, everyone who is pro-life is not pro-life. You are pro-birth. Where are you when it is time to help support that baby that you forced the mother to have, when she knew she was not fit to have one? Oh yeah, not your problem and you don't want your taxes used to 'give hand outs'.
 
rascal14 said:
No one wants to abort full-term healthy babies, LOL.

You can't actually think the majority of people want to kill healthy babies? The ONLY reason a baby should be aborted that long into a pregnancy is if it is going to be born with half a brain or die within a few days, or kill the mother in order to be born. Who decides to play god and say that the baby should live and not the mother in that situation?

A baby has ZERO electrical impulses in the brain for the first few weeks as a fetus, let alone normal brain activity for 20-25 WEEKS. Any time after this, the only reason a baby should be aborted is for above stated reasons. You're not god, don't think you have the right to say whether or not a mother should let a parasite live inside her at this point.

Also, everyone who is pro-life is not pro-life. You are pro-birth. Where are you when it is time to help support that baby that you forced the mother to have, when she knew she was not fit to have one? Oh yeah, not your problem and you don't want your taxes used to 'give hand outs'.
Click to expand...

To me, Im not concerned for the majority, but 1 is too many for me. Im not "anti-abortion," I just want to draw a line, and what that line is I cant say exactly for sure thats up for scientific discussion (I am not religious.) I do support abortion at any stage if the mother is at a risk or the baby is going to have significant problems, but other than that I feel the baby even if still unborn (at least to a designated scientific line, or other medical exemption) has as much of a Constitutional rights as the mother has. Its a human being to me. So in that case in defense of the unborn babies liberty, the mother must be told what she can do with what she has in her stomach or face serious consequences. Im not worried about parasites, lol. Just my opinion. In my world Id boycott socialism and move to only volunteerism and personal freedoms so when Im president the next decade forgedaboutit!
 
rascal14 said:
No one wants to abort full-term healthy babies, LOL.

You can't actually think the majority of people want to kill healthy babies? The ONLY reason a baby should be aborted that long into a pregnancy is if it is going to be born with half a brain or die within a few days, or kill the mother in order to be born. Who decides to play god and say that the baby should live and not the mother in that situation?

A baby has ZERO electrical impulses in the brain for the first few weeks as a fetus, let alone normal brain activity for 20-25 WEEKS. Any time after this, the only reason a baby should be aborted is for above stated reasons. You're not god, don't think you have the right to say whether or not a mother should let a parasite live inside her at this point.

Also, everyone who is pro-life is not pro-life. You are pro-birth. Where are you when it is time to help support that baby that you forced the mother to have, when she knew she was not fit to have one? Oh yeah, not your problem and you don't want your taxes used to 'give hand outs'.
Click to expand...

give it a break...there are too many ways for prevention plus there is a abortion pill. a abortion just for the sake of not wanting a child should be made way before 25th week.

hey man, when is the mother a mother-before or after the abortion?
 
thebigt said:
give it a break...there are too many ways for prevention plus there is a abortion pill. a abortion just for the sake of not wanting a child should be made way before 25th week.

don't want taxes to be used for handouts--who the hell are you kidding? as if I have a say in what taxes go for? I can name a dozen things I don't want to fund, I bet you can too.
Click to expand...

Then stop pretending that most are occurring that way. 1.2% occur after the 21st week and if you want to bring that number down, only one thing has been proven to work: access to clinics for birth control and abortions. If Republicans want to take away access to both (and I'm not just talking about welfare but screwing people over on insurance as well) then more abortions are going to occur and they will happen later as people need to save up and find a clinic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top