Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums - Assassination attempt on Trump

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

(08-26-2024, 08:34 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 07:18 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Whaf Harris policies do you like that aren't stolen from Trump? Can't wait to hear this.

Pro-Harris: I believe man-made climate change is real and we should try to do something about it. I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. I believe we should continue to support NATO and we should continue to build alliances with other countries. I don't like Trump's proposal to put massive tariffs on imported products. I don't want to try to round up every illegal and deport them. I don't want to put prayer back in the schools, and I am mildly pro-choice on abortion.

Pro-Trump: I don't like affirmative action or any race or sex-based "solutions" to perceived problems. I do want to get control of the border. I don't think soaking the rich is a good idea at all. I am totally against a wealth tax. I don't want to pay off student loans. I don't want to do price controls and I don't like her anti-gouging proposals. I am for free markets.

I'm sure I can come up with some others, but those are good examples. Caldrac asked for both, so I did both.

Neither one of them is addressing the biggest and most dangerous thing facing this country, and that is the massive federal debt.

This sums up my views, except I am pro life. That should be a point for Trump but there is not a pro life candidate in this race.

I don't blame Trump for that.

The pro life side has massively screwed things up. I am not a doctor but I guess I had faith that there were doctors working for the pro-lifers that could put together clear laws and policies about when abortions are medically needed. For the next generation we will be associated with the image of a woman bleeding out in the hospital while a doctor holds his hands up saying "but I don't want to go to jail".

(08-26-2024, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 08:34 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Pro-Harris: I believe man-made climate change is real and we should try to do something about it. I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. I believe we should continue to support NATO and we should continue to build alliances with other countries. I don't like Trump's proposal to put massive tariffs on imported products. I don't want to try to round up every illegal and deport them. I don't want to put prayer back in the schools, and I am mildly pro-choice on abortion.

Pro-Trump: I don't like affirmative action or any race or sex-based "solutions" to perceived problems. I do want to get control of the border. I don't think soaking the rich is a good idea at all. I am totally against a wealth tax. I don't want to pay off student loans. I don't want to do price controls and I don't like her anti-gouging proposals. I am for free markets.

I'm sure I can come up with some others, but those are good examples. Caldrac asked for both, so I did both.

Neither one of them is addressing the biggest and most dangerous thing facing this country, and that is the massive federal debt.

This sums up my views, except I am pro life. That should be a point for Trump but there is not a pro life candidate in this race.

I don't blame Trump for that.

The pro life side has massively screwed things up. I am not a doctor but I guess I had faith that there were doctors working for the pro-lifers that could put together clear laws and policies about when abortions are medically needed. For the next generation we will be associated with the image of a woman bleeding out in the hospital while a doctor holds his hands up saying "but I don't want to go to jail".

This is a "States Right" issue. Trump is correct. This is a topic for the people in each state to decide for themselves. The government can codify it (the president can't) It will take an amendment to do this. There are 4 ways in the constitution this can be accomplished. (no mike I am not going to give you a link go read the constitution) Many topics are left to the states to decide for themselves as it should be. I believe it was actually the issue behind the Hamilton - Burr duel a long time ago.

This issue like gun control will not be solved by congress. These issues make them way too much money for them to have any motivation to solve. Besides it really helps firing up their base. (otherwise known as useful fools)

(08-26-2024, 10:37 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]This sums up my views, except I am pro life. That should be a point for Trump but there is not a pro life candidate in this race.

I don't blame Trump for that.

The pro life side has massively screwed things up. I am not a doctor but I guess I had faith that there were doctors working for the pro-lifers that could put together clear laws and policies about when abortions are medically needed. For the next generation we will be associated with the image of a woman bleeding out in the hospital while a doctor holds his hands up saying "but I don't want to go to jail".

This is a "States Right" issue. Trump is correct. This is a topic for the people in each state to decide for themselves. The government can codify it (the president can't) It will take an amendment to do this. There are 4 ways in the constitution this can be accomplished. (no mike I am not going to give you a link go read the constitution) Many topics are left to the states to decide for themselves as it should be. I believe it was actually the issue behind the Hamilton - Burr duel a long time ago.

This issue like gun control will not be solved by congress. These issues make them way too much money for them to have any motivation to solve. Besides it really helps firing up their base. (otherwise known as useful fools)

Trump might be right. He's not the problem though. As I said, the problem is that states like Texas and Florida have implemented laws that are confusing and strict enough to produce horrendous outcomes. The pro life side should be able to point at a state and tell the rest of the country "this is how your state should be." And they don't have that right now.

The Dems are out there saying there should be a federal law allowing abortion in most cases. The average voter isn't going to dive into what the constitution says about state vs federal. The average voter is more likely to notice the articles about women getting sepsis and major blood loss due to doctors that are confused over the law.

Trump is basically punting, which is the best move for him at the moment. What I'm saying is the other players on his team should have set up a better situation for him.

(08-26-2024, 10:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 10:37 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a "States Right" issue. Trump is correct. This is a topic for the people in each state to decide for themselves. The government can codify it (the president can't) It will take an amendment to do this. There are 4 ways in the constitution this can be accomplished. (no mike I am not going to give you a link go read the constitution) Many topics are left to the states to decide for themselves as it should be. I believe it was actually the issue behind the Hamilton - Burr duel a long time ago.

This issue like gun control will not be solved by congress. These issues make them way too much money for them to have any motivation to solve. Besides it really helps firing up their base. (otherwise known as useful fools)

Trump might be right. He's not the problem though. As I said, the problem is that states like Texas and Florida have implemented laws that are confusing and strict enough to produce horrendous outcomes. The pro life side should be able to point at a state and tell the rest of the country "this is how your state should be." And they don't have that right now.

The Dems are out there saying there should be a federal law allowing abortion in most cases. The average voter isn't going to dive into what the constitution says about state vs federal. The average voter is more likely to notice the articles about women getting sepsis and major blood loss due to doctors that are confused over the law.

Trump is basically punting, which is the best move for him at the moment. What I'm saying is the other players on his team should have set up a better situation for him.

Texas and Florida are politically changing by the year though. Also, it is fair in my opinion. It's the college educated women mostly pressing this issue, and, mostly college educated people end up as transplants in various states and cities.

Seems inevitable that the college educated white feminist women, that are hell bent on the destruction of their country over the right for abortions after making bad judgement calls and poor life choices are winning in the long run.

It's probably the unattractive, non bangable women pushing this anyway, but, they get the right to vote like everybody else. I honestly think Trump's stance on this issue is one of the LEAST conservative and concerns about him.

It's left up to the states. It should continue to remain this way. Don't like Florida? Don't like Texas? [BLEEP] move then. There's 48 other options you can pick from.

Or, again. Like I said. Gee, I don't know, maybe exercise:

1. Better Self-Control
2. Better Birth-Control
3. Better Judgement In Sexual Partners

Not that [BLEEP] hard to figure out man...

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(08-26-2024, 11:09 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 10:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Trump might be right. He's not the problem though. As I said, the problem is that states like Texas and Florida have implemented laws that are confusing and strict enough to produce horrendous outcomes. The pro life side should be able to point at a state and tell the rest of the country "this is how your state should be." And they don't have that right now.

The Dems are out there saying there should be a federal law allowing abortion in most cases. The average voter isn't going to dive into what the constitution says about state vs federal. The average voter is more likely to notice the articles about women getting sepsis and major blood loss due to doctors that are confused over the law.

Trump is basically punting, which is the best move for him at the moment. What I'm saying is the other players on his team should have set up a better situation for him.
Texas and Florida are politically changing by the year though. Also, it is fair in my opinion. It's the college educated women mostly pressing this issue, and, mostly college educated people end up as transplants in various states and cities.

Seems inevitable that the college educated white feminist women, that are hell bent on the destruction of their country over the right for abortions after making bad judgement calls and poor life choices are winning in the long run.

It's probably the unattractive, non bangable women pushing this anyway, but, they get the right to vote like everybody else. I honestly think Trump's stance on this issue is one of the LEAST conservative and concerns about him.

It's left up to the states. It should continue to remain this way. Don't like Florida? Don't like Texas? [BLEEP] move then. There's 48 other options you can pick from.

Or, again. Like I said. Gee, I don't know, maybe exercise:

1. Better Self-Control
2. Better Birth-Control
3. Better Judgement In Sexual Partners

Not that [BLEEP] hard to figure out man...

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

If you read some of the articles coming out, the issue is hitting women who want to give birth and be moms but simply have life threatening complications pop up along the way. Your argument is about two years out of date at this point.

Wait a minute. This brings up another issue. What about the father of the baby? What if he wants the child and to be a father? What rights does he have? Rights are a 2 way street, A lot is said about those men that do not and women get all kinds of child support from them as it is their right. What if the guy actually wants the child and the woman decides after agreeing to the process bails. I am not talking about rape./incest etc.

You need to address this as well. !! (WEG)

(08-26-2024, 11:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 11:09 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Texas and Florida are politically changing by the year though. Also, it is fair in my opinion. It's the college educated women mostly pressing this issue, and, mostly college educated people end up as transplants in various states and cities.

Seems inevitable that the college educated white feminist women, that are hell bent on the destruction of their country over the right for abortions after making bad judgement calls and poor life choices are winning in the long run.

It's probably the unattractive, non bangable women pushing this anyway, but, they get the right to vote like everybody else. I honestly think Trump's stance on this issue is one of the LEAST conservative and concerns about him.

It's left up to the states. It should continue to remain this way. Don't like Florida? Don't like Texas? [BLEEP] move then. There's 48 other options you can pick from.

Or, again. Like I said. Gee, I don't know, maybe exercise:

1. Better Self-Control
2. Better Birth-Control
3. Better Judgement In Sexual Partners

Not that [BLEEP] hard to figure out man...

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

If you read some of the articles coming out, the issue is hitting women who want to give birth and be moms but simply have life threatening complications pop up along the way. Your argument is about two years out of date at this point.

No, it's not. That's the majority, low information voter for you from the left being manipulated at their college campus.

The demograph you're bringing up? They're the exception, exemption to the rule. Often times, willing to bet they have no issues medically getting cleared for it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

As far as the abortion issue, for the most part I am against it (pro-life) and agree it should be a State issue rather than a federal one.

I can understand in cases of incest (rare) or rape (possibly) and perhaps if there is a clear critical medical danger to the woman or the baby.

I am very much against it for the many young women that use it as a form of birth control. That's what the far left advocate for when they argue that a fetus is not a human, even in late-term.

Again, this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.

(08-26-2024, 01:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the abortion issue, for the most part I am against it (pro-life) and agree it should be a State issue rather than a federal one.

I can understand in cases of incest (rare) or rape (possibly) and perhaps if there is a clear critical medical danger to the woman or the baby.

I am very much against it for the many young women that use it as a form of birth control. That's what the far left advocate for when they argue that a fetus is not a human, even in late-term.

Again, this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.

I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 01:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the abortion issue, for the most part I am against it (pro-life) and agree it should be a State issue rather than a federal one.

I can understand in cases of incest (rare) or rape (possibly) and perhaps if there is a clear critical medical danger to the woman or the baby.

I am very much against it for the many young women that use it as a form of birth control. That's what the far left advocate for when they argue that a fetus is not a human, even in late-term.

Again, this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.

I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use threats of government punishment to reduce abortion.

(08-26-2024, 12:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 11:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If you read some of the articles coming out, the issue is hitting women who want to give birth and be moms but simply have life threatening complications pop up along the way. Your argument is about two years out of date at this point.
No, it's not. That's the majority, low information voter for you from the left being manipulated at their college campus.

The demograph you're bringing up? They're the exception, exemption to the rule. Often times, willing to bet they have no issues medically getting cleared for it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use government policy to reduce abortion.

(08-26-2024, 12:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's not. That's the majority, low information voter for you from the left being manipulated at their college campus.

The demograph you're bringing up? They're the exception, exemption to the rule. Often times, willing to bet they have no issues medically getting cleared for it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

The fundamental premise of the anti-abortion stance is that an unborn child is a human being which has rights and deserves protection. If that unborn child is the product of rape or incest, that doesn't change the fact that if you are pro-life, that is a baby that should be protected. That's why I don't understand the exception for rape or incest. How the baby got there does not change the fact that it is a human life.

(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 01:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the abortion issue, for the most part I am against it (pro-life) and agree it should be a State issue rather than a federal one.

I can understand in cases of incest (rare) or rape (possibly) and perhaps if there is a clear critical medical danger to the woman or the baby.

I am very much against it for the many young women that use it as a form of birth control. That's what the far left advocate for when they argue that a fetus is not a human, even in late-term.

Again, this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.

I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

Because in those cases the mother wasn't a negligent or willing participation to the creation. I wouldn't like the idea of the baby's termination in those cases because as you said, it's a life that should be protected, but in those cases even though it wouldn't be a "medical" danger to the mother or the baby, forcing birth very much could be a danger to both's well being. I would be interested to see the numbers of abortions in cases like that. I'm going to guess that it's probably 1% of total cases or less.

(08-26-2024, 03:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use government policy to reduce abortion.

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

The fundamental premise of the anti-abortion stance is that an unborn child is a human being which has rights and deserves protection. If that unborn child is the product of rape or incest, that doesn't change the fact that if you are pro-life, that is a baby that should be protected. That's why I don't understand the exception for rape or incest. How the baby got there does not change the fact that it is a human life.

I already said I agree with you but too many people disagree. Very few people are willing to stake their reputation on requiring rape victims to keep their baby.

Especially because, today, the mother who keeps her rapist's child typically has to go through complicated, expensive legal maneuvers to prevent that rapist from having any contact with her or the child.

You know me. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use threats of government punishment to reduce abortion.

(08-26-2024, 12:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's not. That's the majority, low information voter for you from the left being manipulated at their college campus.

The demograph you're bringing up? They're the exception, exemption to the rule. Often times, willing to bet they have no issues medically getting cleared for it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

(08-26-2024, 03:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use threats of government punishment to reduce abortion.

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

I actually do not know anyone that thinks that. Either you are hanging out with all the wrong people or you are at a loss for arguments to make your point and resulting to silly irrational comparisons.

(08-26-2024, 03:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use threats of government punishment to reduce abortion.

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

It's not my opinion. It's an opinion I attribute to others.

(08-26-2024, 03:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use threats of government punishment to reduce abortion.

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

But that's exactly what you said. In cases of rape or incest, you would allow an abortion, "Because in those cases the mother wasn't a negligent or willing participation to the creation." So if the mother was a negligent or willing participant in the creation, you would force her to have the child. You are punishing the mother.

My question is, is it a child or not? Why would it be okay to kill the child because it was created through rape or incest? If you are pro-life, because aborting an unborn child is murder, making an exception for rape or incest doesn't make sense.

(08-26-2024, 03:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

It's not my opinion. It's an opinion I attribute to others.

Others on the far left like you.

Some people have morals and beliefs that the far left like you don't understand or tolerate.

I was having a rational discussion with TRM and you chimed in with your far left drivel rather than understand where people like me come from and what we think.

He asked a valid question to me, and rather than answer it with some thought you spewed hatred and nonsense leftist garbage bordering on bringing religion into the discussion.

(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 01:56 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the abortion issue, for the most part I am against it (pro-life) and agree it should be a State issue rather than a federal one.

I can understand in cases of incest (rare) or rape (possibly) and perhaps if there is a clear critical medical danger to the woman or the baby.

I am very much against it for the many young women that use it as a form of birth control. That's what the far left advocate for when they argue that a fetus is not a human, even in late-term.

Again, this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.

I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest. In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger. So what about the baby? Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child? If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies? They didn't commit a crime. They're innocent.

It's the morality of it. You can be Pro-Life while also being fully aware and subjective when it comes to common sense. Sadly, I know some people who think it's acceptable for the woman to suffer the process of birthing a child created through rape and incest.

Even when confronted if it was his own mother, daughters, wife or sister that was the victim of these exact scenarios. He was adamant about keeping the child.

I don't agree with that, at all. This is where people get themselves into trouble. By picking one extreme or the other. There's nut jobs out there on the Ultra Pro Life spectrum that think it's acceptable.

Just like there's looney tunes on the left wanting to be able to abort a child well deep into the final days of impending and typical birth at the eight to ninth month marker.

This is where I draw the line as well. I think these situations require common sense laws, practices and protocol.

1. Abortions should be left up to the state. If you don't like the state's stance on abortion? Tough [BLEEP]. Leave. Find a state that fits your beliefs.

2. If it had to be federally agreed upon? I think the decision should be made within 3 months time. That's 90 days to make a decision. Covered by insurance, state, etc.

That can be worked out overtime. If you fail to make it within that timeline? You pay for it out of pocket. It will be well documented and known.

That's for first timers. Second, third or multiple abusers of this practice? I honestly feel tickets should be issued, along with remedial sexual education classes, courses, fines and fees, that you pay for out of pocket.

Lastly, clear, well defined exceptions are noted.

Rape, Incest & Medical Risk. Those are all exceptions that constitute an abortion in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(08-26-2024, 03:37 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2024, 03:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the part in bold... what an awful and terrible thing to say. Not surprising since most of the far left like you think that way.

But that's exactly what you said. In cases of rape or incest, you would allow an abortion, "Because in those cases the mother wasn't a negligent or willing participation to the creation." So if the mother was a negligent or willing participant in the creation, you would force her to have the child. You are punishing the mother.

My question is, is it a child or not? Why would it be okay to kill the child because it was created through rape or incest? If you are pro-life, because aborting an unborn child is murder, making an exception for rape or incest doesn't make sense.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46