Donald Trump running for president

[ax1]

Invalid Link Removed

That fact is Americans are starving, and over in California 10s of thousands of people are living on sidewalks and illegal immigrants are getting free hotel accommodations and free air travel.

This country is in deep shyt dead broke, the borders should be 1000000% sealed off, unless you want to personally sponsor and fully pay to take someone in and take care of them yourselves.

 

[thebigt]

Invalid Link Removed

geez, planned parenthood provides financial assistance for women in poverty--and taxpayer dollars are used to fund planned parenthood!!!

try again!!!

 

[Beau]

The reason women are denied abortions is almost exclusively because of gestational age limits. According to Wikipedia, only 1.3% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy. "The previable period is considered to be between 20 and 25 weeks gestation." In other words, those denied abortions waited about 5 months to seek an abortion. It might be worthwhile to look at a fetus at 5 months, as a point of reference. This suggests that the majority of women who have been denied abortions are the victim of their own actions/inactions by not seeking an abortion more promptly. 5 months is a long time.

After reading the article linked above about woman being denied abortions, I noticed that the article did not indicate that these same women (and/or their partners) had been previously denied birth control or denied the opportunity to make sure the person they were having unprotected sex with was committed to the relationship (or disease free). To the best of my knowledge, several governmental and non-governmental entities provide various birth control/STD prevention products free of charge.

If accurate, one might view the resulting abortions as a form of after-the-fact birth control. Failing to be responsible enough to avoid conception (the ounce of prevention), they defaulted to the pound of cure. But (as has been pointed out) the pound of cure in this case may very well carry several long term, serious consequences - including a life of regret.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that it would have been far better, for all involved, if those who caused the conception to have been more selective in choosing a partner, and also more intentional in preventing an unintended birth. This is what true adults are called to do; it is called being responsible.

One might also argue that the decision to kill a life because those involved failed to act responsibly (in the one activity having a reasonable probability of creating a child) is still, nonetheless, a decision to destroy a human life. This might lead to a discussion about whether this type of failure to act responsibly is similar in some ways to other bad decisions/failures to act responsibly that cause the life of another to be terminated (e.g., drunk driving).

It might also be worthwhile to consider the role of the individual's parent in all of this, and whether that parent placed a high priority in raising children who understood that they were going to be held responsible for their action (not coddled) and that the life of a child is precious.

As a helpful reminder, having unprotected sex is not a "mistake".

In the history of man, I'll wager that a nude man (having an erection at the time) has never accidentally tripped and stumbled (penis-first) into the waiting vulva of an also nude woman (who just happened to be on her back in a legs spread position), causing an involuntary and spontaneous ejaculation, and conception. That would have been a mistake. If anyone has a YouTube video showing otherwise, please provide links.

Most unwanted pregnancies are the result of bad but intentional decisions that subsequently had an undesired outcome. To label an intentional bad decision as mistake removes individual responsibility from the result. Most guys just want to get laid - going out and having sex with someone is not a mistake. While many people regret the subsequent pregnancy, the act that preceded it was very intentional, not mistaken. No one ever accidentally screwed someone. The decision to have an abortion is likewise, a decision, not a mistake.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It is a stark rephrasing of the very serious individual responsibility each of us have. It may stress that this is one a few things that truly qualify as a life or death decision.

P.S. - I have no statistics (I believe none exist) on the number of rapes or incestual sex that result in pregnancy. I have to think the number is small enough that (if need be) they could be considered separately. However, I do believe it is very selectively convenient when pro-abortion arguments are based on (what I hope is a small percentage) of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. That is horrible enough on its own. I have to think that the glibly thrown out "but what about rape or incest" argument to justify all other abortions must be terribly offensive to those who have actually been raped or subject to incest. It would be interesting to see statistics on the percentage of abortions that resulted from failed birth control (probably rather small), and those that involved alcohol, drug use or unprotected sex.

 

[sammpedd88]

What about the "pro life" crowd who refuse to follow basic practices to save thousands of lives?

You want an abortion? Can't have that you satanist! Think of the life you are taking!

Want me to wear a mask and social distance to save a life? Can't have that you anti freedom libtardzzzzzz. My body my choice!

Remember when conservatives stormed the Capitol and beat a cop to death with a flag pole? Good times. True Americans.

Or that time Lauren Boebart called Biden a pedo while her husband was flashing his penis to 12 year old girls

So Christians are the ones not wearing masks? What in the **** are you watching on the news in NZ?? All you do is post bullshit trying to bust peoples balls. You truly don’t know what goes on in the US.

 

[thebigt]

So Christians are the ones not wearing masks? What in the **** are you watching on the news in NZ?? All you do is post bullshit trying to bust peoples balls. You truly don’t know what goes on in the US.

inb4 CNN

 

[tyga tyga]

So Christians are the ones not wearing masks? What in the **** are you watching on the news in NZ?? All you do is post bullshit trying to bust peoples balls. You truly don’t know what goes on in the US.

I can say the ones within my church (congregation over 1k plus at 8am) don’t. I can count on my eight fingers (since thumbs aren’t fingers lol - joke, relax) who do.

Edit* to be objective, idk how many have had their vaccinations.

 

[jswain34]

Typical liberal putting “feelings” over another’s life. It’s actually sad your mind thinks that way. “There has been a rape, let’s commit a murder so there isn’t any more physical pain”

I didn’t “act” like anything. Get out of here with this weak argument.

Typical jackass thinking anyone who doesnt agree with them is a liberal .

I dont think we should require a woman to go through the pain, mental and physical distress, and risk associated with labor when the only reason they “have to” is because they were also forced against their will to be penetrated by a dîck.

You think there is nothing more to labor than a little bit of temporary physical pain?? Lol.

If the abortion is carried out early enough, you arent “murdering” anything because it was never alive yet in the first place.

 

[THOR 70]

Typical jackass thinking anyone who doesnt agree with them is a liberal .

I dont think we should require a woman to go through the pain, mental and physical distress, and risk associated with labor when the only reason they “have to” is because they were also forced against their will to be penetrated by a dîck.

You think there is nothing more to labor than a little bit of temporary physical pain?? Lol.

If the abortion is carried out early enough, you arent “murdering” anything because it was never alive yet in the first place.

No you clearly don’t value life, and think with emotion and not logic, this is why I label you a liberal. Your side stepping the facts I’ve already laid out that abortion itself is can be painful and emotionally damaging, but that doesn’t fit your narrative. Again, one ends in murder and one ends in life.

Please do enlighten me when YOU determine life starts so you can justify your disgusting rationalization of murder. Notice how you say “not murdering anything” this is because you don’t want to acknowledge that life is somebody and not a “thing”

Pathetic argument at best.

 

[Jiigzz]

Man, you try so hard. Abortion is 100% taking a life and the other is speculative at best saving a life. Masks, or whatever you’ve convinced yourself of, don’t save lives...you will have to find another way to go virtue signal.

Weak counter argument. Nice try though

 

[Jiigzz]

geez, planned parenthood provides financial assistance for women in poverty--and taxpayer dollars are used to fund planned parenthood!!!

try again!!!

You said to post evidence of people being denied an abortion. So I did. Why you moving the goalposts?

 

[sammpedd88]

inb4 CNN

 

[dixonk]

How about this. Free govt funded abortions, but if you get an abortion you will be sterilized. They want us to have a license to carry a gun. People should need a license to procreate. Too much stupid people being brought into this world.

 

[Jiigzz]

No you clearly don’t value life, and think with emotion and not logic, this is why I label you a liberal. Your side stepping the facts I’ve already laid out that abortion itself is can be painful and emotionally damaging, but that doesn’t fit your narrative. Again, one ends in murder and one ends in life.

Please do enlighten me when YOU determine life starts so you can justify your disgusting rationalization of murder. Notice how you say “not murdering anything” this is because you don’t want to acknowledge that life is somebody and not a “thing”

Pathetic argument at best.

Do you care this much when the US bombs civilians in the middle east, or only when it comes to having an opinion over how people should deal with pregnancy as a result of rape, something, I might add, you'll never have to face.

But its nice to see that you value life when you have to sacrifice nothing. The second you do, all you actually care about is not being told what to do LOL

 

[Jiigzz]

inb4 CNN

Don't you watch Fox News? A network that defended a lawsuit by saying that no reasonable person takes their news anchors seriously?

 

[dixonk]

Don't you watch Fox News? A network that defended a lawsuit by saying that no reasonable person takes their news anchors seriously?

Tribalism runs so deep we now have people arguing over which news channels they watch. Hint: they are all fake.

 

[Jiigzz]

Tribalism runs so deep we now have people arguing over which news channels they watch. Hint: they are all fake.

I don't watch either, but it's kinda funny being told I watch CNN when Fox News is a step away from a tabloid

 

[dixonk]

Don't you watch Fox News? A network that defended a lawsuit by saying that no reasonable person takes their news anchors seriously?

Tribalism runs so deep we now have people arguing over which news channels they watch. Hint: they are all fake.

 

[dixonk]

I don't watch either, but it's kinda funny being told I watch CNN when Fox News is a step away from a tabloid

And CNN is not?

 

[Jiigzz]

And CNN is not?

If they ever successfully defend a lawsuit by saying that noone takes them seriously, then id say yes.

But so far that hasn't happened

 

[Beau]

Not that it make a difference, but: I do not agree that early termination somehow means that the embryo "was never alive". I am no expert, but that is my opinion. Although it may not yet be viable outside the womb, I believe conception is the beginning of life. It must "start somewhere" and I see no logical starting point other than conception. It is the triggering event.

That may, or may not be a popular opinion, and it certainly does nothing to support the contention that early abortion does not somehow equate to killing, but it is what it is.

I fully appreciate that my opinion isn't all that important (except to me). However, there are many MDs and Scientists, each of whom is far more intelligent and qualified than me, who have concluded life begins at conception. Thee is a wealth or reading to support this.

Given what technology now enables, there are scientific evidence demonstrating that:

• The baby's heart can be detected 18 days after conception. This would be about 4 days after most women miss a period
• The baby's heartbeat can be seen to beat by day 22.
• Approximately 6 weeks from conception, signals from the developing baby's brain can be detected.
• The developing baby begins to spontaneously move between 5-6 weeks after conception.
• About 8 weeks after conception, touching the embryo elicits squinting, jaw movement, grasping motions, and toe pointing.
• The embryo can hiccup by 7 weeks. The diaphragm muscle is fully formed by 8 weeks and intermittent breathing begins.

I believe each of those observations provides evidence that "a life" exists, although that life is not viable until much later.

I understand there are many that allege that we should "follow the science". I see no reason that this should be an exception.

From a legal perspective, if one person causes the death of a pregnant woman, they may be changed with two homicides, not one. Ironically, if a drunk driver hits a car being driven by a woman on her way to get an abortion, and the woman dies as a result, the drunk driver could be changed with two counts of vehicular manslaughter, not one. One for the woman, the other for her unborn child.

If there is a scientific, medical or legal argument that nothing is being killed as a result of abortion, I would be interested in learning more about it; everything I've heard suggests otherwise.

 

[ax1]

If they ever successfully defend a lawsuit by saying that noone takes them seriously, then id say yes.

But so far that hasn't happened

CNN is Groper Joe's and the DNC's Goebbels.

 

[ax1]

My floor is late abortions and partial birth abortions. In one room they can save a baby from a 7 month pregnant woman and putting the baby on life support and turns out to have a full wonderful life, next room they are aborting a 7 month pregnant woman and throwing it in a trashcan. It just makes absolute no sense to me.

 

[Jiigzz]

Not that it make a difference, but: I do not agree that early termination somehow means something "was never alive". I am no expert, but that is my opinion. Although it may not yet be viable outside the womb, I believe conception is the beginning of life.

That may, or may not be a popular opinion, and it certainly does nothing to support the contention that early abortion does not somehow equate to killing, but it is what it is.

I fully appreciate that my opinion isn't all that important (except to me). However, there are many MDs and Scientists, each of whom is far more intelligent and qualified than me, who have concluded life begins at conception. Thee is a wealth or reading to support this.

Given what technology now enables, there is scientific demonstrating that:

• The baby's heart can be detected 18 days after conception. This would be about 4 days after most women miss a period
• The baby's heartbeat can be seen to beat by day 22.
• Approximately 6 weeks from conception, signals from the developing baby's brain can be detected.
• The developing baby begins to spontaneously move between 5-6 weeks after conception.
• About 8 weeks after conception, touching the embryo elicits squinting, jaw movement, grasping motions, and toe pointing.
• The embryo can hiccup by 7 weeks. The diaphragm muscle is fully formed by 8 weeks and intermittent breathing begins.

I understand there are many that allege that we should "follow the science". I see no reason that this should be an exception.

From a legal perspective, if one person causes the death of a pregnant woman, they may be changed with two homicides, not one. Ironically, if a drunk driver hit a car being driven by a woman on her way to get an abortion, and the woman died as a result, the drunk driver could be changed with two counts of vehicular manslaughter, not one.

The law frequently redefines words that apply only in the context of the act - it is so that there is no confusion or debate as to what that is. Sometimes the legal definitions go against the dictionary or those definitions established through another means.

That is why law has an interpretations section, and doesn't just say "refer to dictionary"

 

[Beau]

The law frequently redefines words that apply only in the context of the act - it is so that there is no confusion or debate as to what that is. Sometimes the legal definitions go against the dictionary or those definitions established through another means.

That is why law has an interpretations section, and doesn't just say "refer to dictionary"

Good, so we agree.

 

[Beau]

My floor is late abortions and partial birth abortions. In one room they can save a baby from a 7 month pregnant woman and putting the baby on life support and turns out to have a full wonderful life, next room they are aborting a 7 month pregnant woman and throwing it in a trashcan. It just makes absolute no sense to me.

I am sorry that you have to be exposed the the latter.

 

[Jiigzz]

Good, so we agree.

Right, so if it is 2 counts of homicide to kill a pregant women and her unborn child under your equivalent of the Crimes Act, it is not a count of homicide if a baby is aborted under your equivalent of the Abortion Act.

Because each act is a law unto its own, and definitions only cross apply if explicitly stated or it is common law verbiage.

 

[THOR 70]

Do you care this much when the US bombs civilians in the middle east, or only when it comes to having an opinion over how people should deal with pregnancy as a result of rape, something, I might add, you'll never have to face.

But its nice to see that you value life when you have to sacrifice nothing. The second you do, all you actually care about is not being told what to do LOL

It’s idiotic to assume I don’t care about people being bombed. Yes war is horrific and not right. Any other pointless questions that go nowhere? You REALLY like to compare completely different topics for emotional effect when you don’t have a leg to stand on.

I don’t have to “face” something personally to have an opinion on something that directly effects the moral fabric of our society. So mute point by you there.

Again, standing up to the blatant oppression from covid comes from a point of CARING for the future of our society. You’re too busy virtue signaling and condemning others for death of thousands for not putting a piece of cloth other their mouths.

 

[thebigt]

You said to post evidence of people being denied an abortion. So I did. Why you moving the goalposts?

you are kidding right?
any woman can get a abortion thru planned parenthood it's what they do. no state can ban a abortion-they can only limit how far along a woman can be...if those women were denied a abortion they were in final trimester.

the whole premise of article you presented was if roe v wade were reversed--which it has not been....damn, man-did you even read the article and see it was written by pro-abortion advocates?

 

[Jiigzz]

It’s idiotic to assume I don’t care about people being bombed. Yes war is horrific and not right. Any other pointless questions that go nowhere? You REALLY like to compare completely different topics for emotional effect when you don’t have a leg to stand on.

I don’t have to “face” something personally to have an opinion on something that directly effects the moral fabric of our society. So mute point by you there.

Again, standing up to the blatant oppression from covid comes from a point of CARING for the future of our society. You’re too busy virtue signaling and condemning others for death of thousands for not putting a piece of cloth other their mouths.

If you cared about the future of society so much, then why do you not do everything you can to protect the vulnerable?

Instead, you are happier telling others what they should and shouldn't do, knowing full well it is a choice you'll never have to personally make.

It's the same as when policy makers are happy to send you off to war, but refuse to serve themselves or send their loved ones. At the end of the day, you are happy to sacrifice others to feel better about yourself, knowing that you have to sacrifice nothing in the process.

If you really cared as much as you pretend you do, you'd be out there adopting the babies taken to full term by rape victims who adhered to your moral cause, but instead you want to make them do it, then palm it off the second it is born, only to then hate the mother for needing to be on welfare to support a child she never wanted. Kudos to you and your morality for destroying 2 lives

 

[Power-Lift]

Un-American, commie Biden Libturdz, nice Border control Senile China Joe... Wut-a -Kunt...

Invalid Link Removed

 

[sammpedd88]

If they ever successfully defend a lawsuit by saying that noone takes them seriously, then id say yes.

But so far that hasn't happened

A CNN anchor said last week about the middle eastern active shooter in CO....he was “Factually Arab but morally white”. Then continued to say this we linked to white supremacy. That’s what CNN is about. And for the record, I don’t watch ANY news network. I don’t even have cable TV and haven’t for 5 years.

 

[Jiigzz]

you are kidding right?
any woman can get a abortion thru planned parenthood it's what they do. no state can ban a abortion-they can only limit how far along a woman can be...if those women were denied a abortion they were in final trimester.

the whole premise of article you presented was if roe v wade were reversed--which it has not been....damn, man-did you even read the article and see it was written by pro-abortion advocates?

If a child is raped and gets pregnant and wants an abortion, but the parents refuse, is it still allowed?

 

[thebigt]

The law frequently redefines words that apply only in the context of the act - it is so that there is no confusion or debate as to what that is. Sometimes the legal definitions go against the dictionary or those definitions established through another means.

That is why law has an interpretations section, and doesn't just say "refer to dictionary"

we are in no position here on a bodybuilding forum to argue interpretations of the law because we have no authority to act upon it.

what we can do is argue the morality of certain things like abortions...i contend that using abortion as birth control is immoral when there are other means available-over half of women who get abortions are on at least 2nd abortion.

 

[thebigt]

If a child is raped and gets pregnant and wants an abortion, but the parents refuse, is it still allowed?

according to the supreme court-YES.

 

[Jiigzz]

we are in no position here on a bodybuilding forum to argue interpretations of the law because we have no authority to act upon it.

what we can do is argue the morality of certain things like abortions...i contend that using abortion as birth control is immoral when there are other means available-over half of women who get abortions are on at least 2nd abortion.

One issue is that people rely on women to take all precautions, but never shift that responsibility to men. If you condemn a women for forgetting to take the pill who then gets pregnant, why then are we forcing her to go through with a pregnancy when the man can just walk away and pay a few bucks a month as 'compensation.' If you are anti abortion, then you should also be pro vasectomy.

If a women is raped, you want her to deal with a physical manifestation of that trauma for the rest of her life? How is that fair?

 

[Jiigzz]

according to the supreme court-YES.

You sure that applies to all states?

 

[Beau]

Right, so if it is 2 counts of homicide to kill a pregant women and her unborn child under your equivalent of the Crimes Act, it is not a count of homicide if a baby is aborted under your equivalent of the Abortion Act.

Because each act is a law unto its own, and definitions only cross apply if explicitly stated or it is common law verbiage.

Yes, and I find the inconsistency appalling. At some point, even those having opposed views must certainly agree that ending a life is ending a life; irrespective of whether that is done via act or omission, intentionally, accidentally, through negligence, malfeasance, or (as in this case) motivated by convenience, relief from obligation/responsibility and for financial reasons.

In each event, it is sad.

We celebrate birthdays.

We may celebrate anniversaries of loved ones who have passed.

To my knowledge, people do not celebrate dates of abortions or their annual anniversary dates. At least, not yet.

Human life is either precious, or not pervious. It isn't both and it isn't situational.

I say, it is precious. That position is motivated by the best of intentions, by integrity, by morality and by my faith. If others disagree, so be it. Life is not a popularity contest.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes, and I find the inconsistency appalling. At some point, even those having opposed views must certainly agree that ending a life is ending a life; irrespective of whether that is done via act or omission, intentionally, accidentally, through negligence, malfeasance, or (as in this case) motivated by convenience, relief from obligation/responsibility and for financial reasons.

In each event, it is sad.

We celebrate birthdays.

We may celebrate anniversaries of loved ones who have passed.

To my knowledge, people do not celebrate dates of abortions or their annual anniversary dates. At least, not yet.

There are laws that govern how an abortion must be carried out, so ending a life isn't just ending a life.

If I beat my dog to death, then I could be charged with ill-treats an animal under the Animal Welfare Act but if I shoot it in the head and it dies instantly, no crime is committed under the Animal Welfare Act.
The result in both cases is destruction of an animal, but one is a crime and the other is not.

If I beat my neighbours dog to death, then I have committed an offence against both the Animal Welfare Act AND the Crimes Act (for destruction of property), whereas if i shoot my neighbours dog in the head, then I have committed an offence only against the Crimes Act.

If the neighbours dog was attacking me or my livestock, and I beat the dog to death, then I have committed no crime under any act as the Dog Control Act allows the use of whatever force necessary to cease the attack.

In all cases the dog is now dead, but in not all cases is it a crime.

If a shoot a home invader, and I a murderer?

 

[Beau]

If a child is raped and gets pregnant and wants an abortion, but the parents refuse, is it still allowed?

Regardless, that event is a tragedy.

 

[Beau]

There are laws that govern how an abortion must be carried out, so ending a life isn't just ending a life.

If I beat my dog to death, then I could be charged with ill-treats an animal under the Animal Welfare Act but if I shoot it in the head and it dies instantly, no crime is committed under the Animal Welfare Act.
The result in both cases is destruction of an animal, but one is a crime and the other is not.

If I beat my neighbours dog to death, then I have committed an offence against both the Animal Welfare Act AND the Crimes Act (for destruction of property), whereas if i shoot my neighbours dog in the head, then I have committed an offence only against the Crimes Act.

If the neighbours dog was attacking me or my livestock, and I beat the dog to death, then I have committed no crime under any act as the Dog Control Act allows the use of whatever force necessary to cease the attack.

In all cases the dog is now dead, but in not all cases is it a crime.

If a shoot a home invader, and I a murderer?

OK, if I understand it correctly, abortion would be OK if the embryo is attacking the mother.

I suppose I can accept that.

 

[thebigt]

One issue is that people rely on women to take all precautions, but never shift that responsibility to men. If you condemn a women for forgetting to take the pill who then gets pregnant, why then are we forcing her to go through with a pregnancy when the man can just walk away and pay a few bucks a month as 'compensation.' If you are anti abortion, then you should also be pro vasectomy.

If a women is raped, you want her to deal with a physical manifestation of that trauma for the rest of her life? How is that fair?

marriage and adoption are viable options, imo...

lots of things in life aren't fair, what about the guy who has 6 dui's and goes out and kills both parents and leaves 2 children orphaned and then pleas down to vehicular manslaughter and gets 3 years? is that fair?

 

[Jiigzz]

OK, if I understand it correctly, abortion would be OK if the embryo is attacking the mother.

I suppose I can accept that.

The point was that different laws apply depending on the context. The result of 'a life has ended' does not mean a crime has been committed.

 

[Carnivorecon]

A CNN anchor said last week about the middle eastern active shooter in CO....he was “Factually Arab but morally white”. Then continued to say this we linked to white supremacy. That’s what CNN is about. And for the record, I don’t watch ANY news network. I don’t even have cable TV and haven’t for 5 years.

This f@ckin anti white propaganda is pissin me off, and these are the same people who will say not all blacks are on benefits, not all muslims are terrorists etc but then when its white people we're just all the same all racist, somehow responsible for all the ills in the world

 

[thebigt]

There are laws that govern how an abortion must be carried out, so ending a life isn't just ending a life.

If I beat my dog to death, then I could be charged with ill-treats an animal under the Animal Welfare Act but if I shoot it in the head and it dies instantly, no crime is committed under the Animal Welfare Act.
The result in both cases is destruction of an animal, but one is a crime and the other is not.

If I beat my neighbours dog to death, then I have committed an offence against both the Animal Welfare Act AND the Crimes Act (for destruction of property), whereas if i shoot my neighbours dog in the head, then I have committed an offence only against the Crimes Act.

If the neighbours dog was attacking me or my livestock, and I beat the dog to death, then I have committed no crime under any act as the Dog Control Act allows the use of whatever force necessary to cease the attack.

In all cases the dog is now dead, but in not all cases is it a crime.

If a shoot a home invader, and I a murderer?

the governor of virginia wants to deliver the baby and then let woman decide rather or not the baby lives.

he actually said this although he walked it back after backlash-and this immoral SOB is a pediatric neurosurgeon!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

marriage and adoption are viable options, imo...

lots of things in life aren't fair, what about the guy who has 6 dui's and goes out and kills both parents and leaves 2 children orphaned and then pleas down to vehicular manslaughter and gets 3 years? is that fair?

So is mandatory vasectomies. If you want to make abortion illegal, reversible vasectomies should be made compulsory.

So because the law isn't fair in that regard, you want to make it more unfair by banning rape victims from getting an abortion? Seems logical.

 

[THOR 70]

If you cared about the future of society so much, then why do you not do everything you can to protect the vulnerable?

Instead, you are happier telling others what they should and shouldn't do, knowing full well it is a choice you'll never have to personally make.

It's the same as when policy makers are happy to send you off to war, but refuse to serve themselves or send their loved ones. At the end of the day, you are happy to sacrifice others to feel better about yourself, knowing that you have to sacrifice nothing in the process.

If you really cared as much as you pretend you do, you'd be out there adopting the babies taken to full term by rape victims who adhered to your moral cause, but instead you want to make them do it, then palm it off the second it is born, only to then hate the mother for needing to be on welfare to support a child she never wanted. Kudos to you and your morality for destroying 2 lives

Omg you’ve complete lost all sensibility with this post. It’s no longer worth my time to respond in seriousness due to your emotional rambling trying to I make me feel bad for things you’re assuming.

 

[thebigt]

So is mandatory vasectomies. If you want to make abortion illegal, reversible vasectomies should be made compulsory.

So because the law isn't fair in that regard, you want to make it more unfair by banning rape victims from getting an abortion? Seems logical.

what i want is irrelevant...i don't make or pass laws.

12 peers on a jury can sentence someone to death...i don't agree with this either.

 

[Jiigzz]

the governor of virginia wants to deliver the baby and then let woman decide rather or not the baby lives.

he actually said this although he walked it back after backlash-and this immoral SOB is a pediatric neurosurgeon!!!

There are always going to be people who take things to the absolute extreme, but that doesn't devalue the entire argument.

 

[Jiigzz]

what i want is irrelevant...i don't make or pass laws.

12 peers on a jury can sentence someone to death...i don't agree with this either.

The law isn't always fair, but making it more unfair doesn't help either.

If you want to be angry about a guy with 6 DUI's only getting 3 years for killing 2 people and orphaning children, then by all means get angry, but victims of rape shouldn't have to lawfully bound to keeping a fetus because all aspects of the law are not just.

 

[Jiigzz]

Omg you’ve complete lost all sensibility with this post. It’s no longer with my time to respond in seriousness due to your emotional rambling trying to I make me feel bad for things you’re assuming.

Do you adopt any children? Are you a part of the solution to the problem, or do you expect others to do it for you?

"Each year, approximately 20,000 youth will age out of the foster care system when they turn 18 or 21, or when they finish high school (depending upon the state in which they live.) These children are at increased risk of poor educational outcomes, experiencing homelessness, and being unemployed."

So then these same people are the ones you hate on for being a part of the welfare system or ending up in prison.

Nice