3rd Debate
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
sturg33
I
Here is one method of making the practice of abortion obsolete.
or we could vilify those lacking the life resources some enjoy
I think it's appropriate to vilify people who choose partial birth abortions. It is difficult for me to even come up with a more heinous act than that.
You choose to defend them.
57Brave
Well-known member
Educate yourself
Politicians who bring up "partial birth abortion" do so because they know it can spur strong and visceral reactions of disgust and moral indignation, not because it's especially relevant to U.S. health care, morals, or laws circa 2016. For 13 years, since 2003, federal law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth abortions, at any point in a pregnancy. Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional. In addition, 19 states have their own laws against these sorts of abortions. While the federal ban does include an exception for situations where the mother's life is endangered, abortion doctors claim they avoid the procedure anyway, as there are other options with less liklihood of legal repercussions. Even before the federal ban, D&X procedures accounted for just 0.2 percent of all abortions, and most of these were performed before the point where a fetus can feel pain or survive on its own outside of the womb.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016
......
What about blood letting
do you have an opinion on that too ?
sturg33
I
I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to what I said.
We have a Presidential candidate who on national television failed to repudiate the action, and basically supported it.
57Brave
Well-known member
“I do not think the United States government should be stepping in,”
-HRC
"You choose to defend them. "
I understand it is a medical procedure !! And like many many medical procedures complicated on so many levels .
Also find it odd you oppose HRC's reasoning and are in favor of the government regulating / interfering with a woman / her doctors health decision
-HRC
"You choose to defend them. "
I understand it is a medical procedure !! And like many many medical procedures complicated on so many levels .
Also find it odd you oppose HRC's reasoning and are in favor of the government regulating / interfering with a woman / her doctors health decision
57Brave
Well-known member
You poo pooed it but
Told you in January all Trump had to do was utter he is Pro Life and you would snap into line
So tell me, how does it feel to be Trumps "base"
VirginiaBrave
Well-known member
My main issue is this. Every voter's number one issue should be their own personal safety and that of their family. That should be above everything, and is why Trump should not be allowed near the White House. His lack of political knowledge and his bullying personality would be the fuse on the powder keg. But thankfully it looks like the electorate is going to rebuke him.
acesfull86
Well-known member
“I do not think the United States government should be stepping in,”
-HRC
It's too bad she doesn't feel that way about any other issue.
-HRC
It's too bad she doesn't feel that way about any other issue.
sturg33
I
I defend the woman's right to have sex. And I defend a baby's right not to be murdered.
Radical, I know.
57Brave
Well-known member
not sure what the issue is outside of a faux call to arms for anti abortion fanatics.
you are willfully ignorant of the law of the land as it applies to D&X Procedure .
Let's try this once more::
Politicians who bring up "partial birth abortion" do so because they know it can spur strong and visceral reactions of disgust and moral indignation,
not because it's especially relevant to U.S. health care, morals, or laws circa 2016.
For 13 years, since 2003, federal law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth
abortions, at any point in a pregnancy.
Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional.
In addition, 19 states have their own laws against these sorts of abortions.
While the federal ban does include an exception for situations where the mother's life is endangered, abortion doctors claim they avoid the procedure
anyway, as there are other options with less liklihood of legal repercussions.
Even before the federal ban, D&X procedures accounted for just 0.2 percent of all abortions, and
most of these were performed before the point where a fetus can feel pain or survive on its own outside of the womb.
Might be a good idea to read the Reason article in full.
........................
you are willfully ignorant of the law of the land as it applies to D&X Procedure .
Let's try this once more::
Politicians who bring up "partial birth abortion" do so because they know it can spur strong and visceral reactions of disgust and moral indignation,
not because it's especially relevant to U.S. health care, morals, or laws circa 2016.
For 13 years, since 2003, federal law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth
abortions, at any point in a pregnancy.
Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional.
In addition, 19 states have their own laws against these sorts of abortions.
While the federal ban does include an exception for situations where the mother's life is endangered, abortion doctors claim they avoid the procedure
anyway, as there are other options with less liklihood of legal repercussions.
Even before the federal ban, D&X procedures accounted for just 0.2 percent of all abortions, and
most of these were performed before the point where a fetus can feel pain or survive on its own outside of the womb.
Might be a good idea to read the Reason article in full.
........................
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Is this honestly that difficult for you to understand, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
Would you be OK with Trump grabbing your girlfriend by the pussy if he wants to? How about kissing her without permission? I'll assume these things are OK with you.
GRABBING WOMEN'S VAGINAS WITHOUT PERMISSION IS SEXUAL ASSAULT. SAY IT WITH ME NOW: SEXUAL ASSAULT. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID HE DID. HE DID NOT SAY "I LIKE PUSSY."
And Clinton did not say late-term abortions are reasonable if a woman happens to decide, late in pregnancy, that she doesn't want the baby. It was said in the scenario that carrying the baby to term will cause health problems for the mother. I don't see how that's outrageous. Sexual assault, however, I do find pretty disturbing, and apparently you're pro-sexual assault.
Think about it this way.
In the free market, if you can't support yourself financially you don't get protection or assistance from the government.
If Trump grabs your girl's pussy and she doesn't do anything about it, that's just Trump demonstrating in the free market you can grab and take what you want with no government interference, as long as you earn it and pay for it with your money.
If Trump is smart enough to pay net zero taxes, can't he get credit for grabbing so much pussy that he's not locked up behind bars?
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Well now that you put it that way!
Except I actually wouldn't care if trump paid for the grabbing of pussy, because at least there's consent there.
sturg33
I
One is bragging about sexual assault.
One is defending slaughtering an unborn baby.
Both are deplorable in my mind.
acesfull86
Well-known member
There are no personal or property rights under a free market now?
sturg33
I
You're talking to a Bernie supporter...