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

The current number are 15 weeks (normal time for the heart beat to begin) and 21 weeks (the normal time for the fetus to respond to outside input)  Which number is the one where life begins there are arguments around.  Anything after that decision is justifying murder/execution. I am not for that.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

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.

Buddy.
I land in the same place as you.
I want abortion banned after a number of weeks, probably 12, with exceptions for (1) rape, (2) incest, and (3) to prevent death or severe physical harm to the mother.
But I don't personally believe in exceptions 1 and 2.  I put them there for folks like you.  Why do you want them there? I don't know. It doesn't matter.  I need your vote.

I'm actually to the right of you on this issue.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.  

I'll try to answer this the best that I can without getting into the religion aspect.

Most people believe that the creation of a child is from love and mutual understanding.

In a case of incest (rare) it's usually a violent crime of an adult against a minor.  As an example, if a 40 year old father has sex with his 14 year old daughter it's a violent crime.  It doesn't matter if the 14 year old daughter "loves" daddy that much.  It's a crime and "violent" if daddy takes her virginity.  That 14 year old daughter should not have her life ruined because of an un-planned pregnancy, especially as a result of a violent crime.  She would have a really tough and terrible life as would the child that she doesn't know to or have the means to raise.  In this case an early termination of the pregnancy is justified.  Yes it is still a child, but in this case termination would be the better choice.

The same goes for the victim of rape.  It is a violent and traumatic experience for a woman.  There is nothing about love or respect about it, it's a violent attack.  Again, it makes no sense to force the woman to change her life, perhaps in a drastic way in order to raise the child.  In this case than yes, I find it acceptable for the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

In both cases, yes it is a child.  I don't like the idea of terminating it's existence, but in my mind it's justified.

In the case of the mother that is a "willing or negligent" participant in the creation.  She made her choice and needs to deal with it.  Caldarac has the right idea about all of that.  Abortion should not be a form of birth control.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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.  

I'll try to answer this the best that I can without getting into the religion aspect.

Most people believe that the creation of a child is from love and mutual understanding.

In a case of incest (rare) it's usually a violent crime of an adult against a minor.  As an example, if a 40 year old father has sex with his 14 year old daughter it's a violent crime.  It doesn't matter if the 14 year old daughter "loves" daddy that much.  It's a crime and "violent" if daddy takes her virginity.  That 14 year old daughter should not have her life ruined because of an un-planned pregnancy, especially as a result of a violent crime.  She would have a really tough and terrible life as would the child that she doesn't know to or have the means to raise.  In this case an early termination of the pregnancy is justified.  Yes it is still a child, but in this case termination would be the better choice.

The same goes for the victim of rape.  It is a violent and traumatic experience for a woman.  There is nothing about love or respect about it, it's a violent attack.  Again, it makes no sense to force the woman to change her life, perhaps in a drastic way in order to raise the child.  In this case than yes, I find it acceptable for the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

In both cases, yes it is a child.  I don't like the idea of terminating it's existence, but in my mind it's justified.

In the case of the mother that is a "willing or negligent" participant in the creation.  She made her choice and needs to deal with it.  Caldarac has the right idea about all of that.  Abortion should not be a form of birth control.

I agree that a woman or girl should never have to raise the baby of her rapist or her incestuous family member.  There are ways to make that the default reality in the law without resorting to abortion.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is a case bouncing around in the courts in FL that is heartbreaking. A teenager was doing drugs with her male cousin, they had sex, she doesn't fully remember having sex, she kept the baby, didn't agree with abortion, knew it was his, he knew it was his, but she has been trying since that time to eliminate him from her life while he has been trying to assert that he has visitation rights as a father. How do you solve that one?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is a case bouncing around in the courts in FL that is heartbreaking.  A teenager was doing drugs with her male cousin, they had sex, she doesn't fully remember having sex, she kept the baby, didn't agree with abortion, knew it was his, he knew it was his, but she has been trying since that time to eliminate him from her life while he has been trying to assert that he has visitation rights as a father.  How do you solve that one?

I would say he should have visitation rights.  Is there any case to be made that he should not have visitation rights?

---

Interesting discussion, but somewhat off-topic in a thread about an assassination attempt on Trump.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

There is a case bouncing around in the courts in FL that is heartbreaking.  A teenager was doing drugs with her male cousin, they had sex, she doesn't fully remember having sex, she kept the baby, didn't agree with abortion, knew it was his, he knew it was his, but she has been trying since that time to eliminate him from her life while he has been trying to assert that he has visitation rights as a father.  How do you solve that one?

I would say he should have visitation rights.  Is there any case to be made that he should not have visitation rights?

They were both minors, they're related, and she views what happened as rape.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I would say he should have visitation rights.  Is there any case to be made that he should not have visitation rights?

They were both minors, they're related, and she views what happened as rape.

That's not enough.  Just because she says it was rape, when it apparently was drug-fueled consensual sex, isn't enough to deny him visitation rights.  She doesn't get to make that decision on her own.  She would have to go to court and get a judge to decide.

---

I’m all for free contraceptives and healthcare for pregnant women if it means we can end the practice of abortion. I don’t see the morning after pill as abortion either. That’s my answer to the rape question give them a morning after pill and find the offender and castrate them.

---

I’m all for free contraceptives and healthcare for pregnant women if it means we can end the practice of abortion. I don’t see the morning after pill as abortion either. That’s my answer to the rape question give them a morning after pill and find the offender and castrate them.

I agree.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They were both minors, they're related, and she views what happened as rape.

That's not enough.  Just because she says it was rape, when it apparently was drug-fueled consensual sex, isn't enough to deny him visitation rights.  She doesn't get to make that decision on her own.  She would have to go to court and get a judge to decide.

It's hard to convict a man of rape.  Criminal law is hard.
This is civil law.  In some ways the burden of proof should be on him to prove he's going to be a safe and constructive member of the kids' life.  
The judge's role should be more like arbitrating than deciding who is "right".  It's not an easy case.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Can y'all get back on topic? This thread is about Trump's faked assassination attempt.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Can y'all get back on topic? This thread is about Trump's faked assassination attempt.

The shot wasn't supposed to actually hit him, but the blood alone was worth an extra 5 points in the polls, so he's okay with it now.   Plus, SS got the shooter, so Trump's check won't even get cashed.  It's a win-win!

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That's not enough.  Just because she says it was rape, when it apparently was drug-fueled consensual sex, isn't enough to deny him visitation rights.  She doesn't get to make that decision on her own.  She would have to go to court and get a judge to decide.

It's hard to convict a man of rape.  Criminal law is hard.
This is civil law.  In some ways the burden of proof should be on him to prove he's going to be a safe and constructive member of the kids' life.  
The judge's role should be more like arbitrating than deciding who is "right".  It's not an easy case.

I agree with that.  If indeed it was rape, that would be very unfortunate for her to have to share the child with the father, but unless she can go to court and get a judge to side with her, the father has to have visitation rights.

---

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1...Dee5w&s=19

---

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_MAmSbyR...cDRjdnNwaw==

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's hard to convict a man of rape.  Criminal law is hard.
This is civil law.  In some ways the burden of proof should be on him to prove he's going to be a safe and constructive member of the kids' life.  
The judge's role should be more like arbitrating than deciding who is "right".  It's not an easy case.

I agree with that.  If indeed it was rape, that would be very unfortunate for her to have to share the child with the father, but unless she can go to court and get a judge to side with her, the father has to have visitation rights.

If she raped him should he have to share the child with her? We all know the answer, likely he'd get no visitation and have to pay child support to her.

Anyway, word out from the left is that it's not fair that Trump didn't die and they demand a Mulligan.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1...Dee5w&s=19

I think they had plenty of Secret Service people.  That wasn't the problem.

---

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1...Dee5w&s=19

I think they had plenty of Secret Service people.  That wasn't the problem.

The nominee and leader in the polls at the time didn't have a full presidential SS detail.  It was a significant part of the problem.  There are other components like incompetency and lack of communication/coordination with local law enforcement which also falls under incompetency, but he should have already been granted a full presidential detail of SS agents.

---