Christian Trump Supporters

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing really to do with Trump's faith.

I'm not sure I can agree. I still vividly recall Trump waving a Bible around in front of St. John's in Washington. Trump is clearly using "faith" (if not his, then that of his presumed followers) as a tool in electioneering.

I do not find this sort of "faith of convenience" to mean a lot, and frankly, I'd be surprised that his followers credit him -- except that so many of those followers watch their own pastors in their mega-churches doing the same thing, except for jet planes and huge buckets of cash.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The state isn't "speaking up", it is actively forcing women to carry pregnancies to term.
What did you think anti-abortion laws were there for?

To save the hundreds of thousands of children in the womb from being killed. Can’t you think of a better way than kill the baby?
So, because Trump supported the innocent babies and is pro-life, because he supported and loves America and looked out for our interests and citizens first, which every leader should do for their Countries. That’s why I voted for him just like I would for any other person, it doesn’t matter their party to me. The Constitution has a job description for the President so whoever I think will do the best job according to that is who I vote for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wait, I just had a light bulb moment. Don't sow baby seeds so you don't get pregnant? Hmmmm.. innovative, organic, logical, out of the box thinking.

Hope it works for you.

Not so out of the box, thought. It's the traditional religious answer - what the other guy ought to do because your religion told you so. And for whatever reason, you think your opinion should constrain others who don't share it. But there is really no reason why anybody should care what you or any other person believes about abortion in any given pregnancy, just what the potential mother does. It's not your business. It's not your deity's business, either. Nor the business of any other described or imagined deity, nor any religious group.

That's thinking out of the box - out of the faith-based, religious box. We've been in the Age of Reason for centuries now, but not everybody wants to jump out of the Age of Faith box that preceded it.

I have evaluated your position. Here it is. Every law forces people to do something against somebody's will. I am sure you are not advocating no laws.

Deflection. That's not his position. That's your straw man.

So are you in favor of the state forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term against their will?

As you've seen, you won't get an answer to that inconvenient question, which gives us a little insight into what is going on in such minds. Of course that's want they want, but they seem to feel that they shouldn't say so. What does that tell you about the honesty of their convictions and the acceptability of their moral convictions? What's so hard about saying, yes, that is what I believe, because I believe that my God wants me to feel that way and work to help force such pregnancies to term rather than offer a choice.

It doesn't seem like such an honorable position to me, but at least it would be honest. What's interesting is that they apparently don't think it's an honorable enough position to state explicitly, either.

You'll never get them to speak in terms of who makes the choice. It will always all be about the definition of a child, a person, a human being, or whatever - all irrelevant to the question of who makes the decision about aborting it or not. There is no nomenclature that changes the morality of an action. But they will always return to the refuge of comments like that as if it were an argument, as if it were a given that if you call it human that it is immoral to end the pregnancy, a circular argument that concludes that it is immoral to abort human fetuses because, as everybody knows, it is immoral to abort human fetuses.

Let me answer for them. Yes, that is exactly what they are for - forced, unwanted pregnancies - but for whatever reason, feel constrained to say so.

 

[Kooky]

To save the hundreds of thousands of children in the womb from being killed.

By forcing women to bring their pregnancies to term against their explicit wishes.

Can’t you think of a better way than kill the baby?

First, I would not call a 1st trimester "a baby" by any stretch.
But second - and most importantly - no, I can't. We are talking about women's bodies, and I am of the firm belief that a woman has an instrinsic right to her body and what goes on there. And if she is growing something that can only survive for as long as she does, I would argue that the question is pretty clear on who should be in control there - and it is certainly not her government.

Can't you think of a better way than making the state force a women into a full pregnancy against her will?
Is an adult human's freedom really just a secondary value compared to the lives of cell clusters that cannot even survive outside a woman's womb?

 

[Kooky]

As you've seen, you won't get an answer to that inconvenient question, which gives us a little insight into what is going on in such minds. Of course that's want they want, but they seem to feel that they shouldn't say so. What does that tell you about the honesty of their convictions and the acceptability of their moral convictions? What's so hard about saying, yes, that is what I believe, because I believe that my God wants me to feel that way and work to help force such pregnancies to term rather than offer a choice.

It doesn't seem like such an honorable position to me, but at least it would be honest. What's interesting is that they apparently don't think it's an honorable enough position to state explicitly, either.

You'll never get them to speak in terms of who makes the choice. It will always all be about the definition of a child, a person, a human being, or whatever - all irrelevant to the question of who makes the decision about aborting it or not. There is no nomenclature that changes the morality of an action. But they will always return to the refuge of comments like that as if it were an argument, as if it were a given that if you call it human that it is immoral to end the pregnancy, a circular argument that concludes that it is immoral to abort human fetuses because, as everybody knows, it is immoral to abort human fetuses.

And this is what I feel makes it hardest for me to engage with that position in honest debate. It's one thing to argue one side of an obvious moral dilemma, but to Christian fundamentalists, such a moral dilemma apparently isn't even allowed to exist in the first place.

There cannot ever be a conflict of two values.
Every question of morality has to be framed as God vs. Satan.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't sow baby seeds so you don't get pregnant? Hmmmm.. innovative, organic, logical, out of the box thinking.

Logic is out the window when hormones are in the driver's seat.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This kind of thinking you have is weird to me. So speaking up for the innocent children so they aren’t killed is now forcing women to do something? If you’re sincere in this I’m not sure what to make of that.

A foetus that cannot survive outside of the mother's womb is not "an innocent child." This is something you do by using words inappropriately -- so that you can get to the result you want.

It is important to remember that many foetuses spontaneously abort all on their own. Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy — before you might even know about a pregnancy.

And there are, in fact risk factors that can make that 10-20% much higher: For example, women older than age 35 have a higher risk of miscarriage than do younger women. At age 35, you have about a 20 percent risk. At age 40, the risk is about 40 percent. And at age 45, it's about 80 percent. Other conditions (uterine or cervical problems, over/under-weight, chronic conditions, smoking/alcohol/drugs, etc.) can all increase the likelihood of spontaneous miscarriage.

Look, it simply is not "an innocent child" until it is born -- or at the very least, before it is capable of survival outside of the womb.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Logic is out the window when hormones are in the driver's seat.

Or as they like to say in Yiddish: "Ven der putz shteht, ligt der sechel in drerd." (“When the prick stands up, the brains get buried in the ground.”)

 

[ElishaElijah]

A foetus that cannot survive outside of the mother's womb is not "an innocent child." This is some you do be using words inappropriately -- so that you can get to the result you want.

Is not a justification to kill the child, which is what it is. When a woman is pregnant she is with child, she is going to have a baby.

It is important to remember that many foetuses spontaneously abort all on their own. Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy — before you might even know about a pregnancy.

Has nothing to do with justifying killing the child in the womb by abortion .

And there are, in fact risk factors that can make that 10-20% much higher: For example, women older than age 35 have a higher risk of miscarriage than do younger women. At age 35, you have about a 20 percent risk. At age 40, the risk is about 40 percent. And at age 45, it's about 80 percent. Other conditions (uterine or cervical problems, over/under-weight, chronic conditions, smoking/alcohol/drugs, etc.) can all increase the likelihood of spontaneous miscarriage.

Those women should make sure they cannot get pregnant if their intention isn’t to have children anyway. If women don’t want kids then make sure you can’t so the end result won’t be the killing of a life in the womb.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Trump because he is pro-life. I don’t agree with the position you are taking or other candidates for President who are pro abortion and there was talk up until the term of delivery from some Democrats.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is one of the reasons I voted for Trump because he is pro-life. I don’t agree with the position you are taking or other candidates for President who are pro abortion and there was talk up until the term of delivery from some Democrats.

Trump supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the risk of the mother's life. He also publicly objected to the recent anti-laws laws, such as Alabama, that don't allow these exceptions. Are the unborn children in these situations not important enough to him?

He has said he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and he wouldn't lose any voters. I don't know about anyone else, but that doesn't sound pro-life to me. It doesn't sound pro-life to me when he suggested that the "2nd Amendment" people could take out Hillary if she had been elected instead of him. Was it pro-life of him when he told his supporters to "knock the crap out of hecklers" or "rough up hecklers" at his campaign rallies? Was it pro-life of him when he said he wanted to punch a protestor in the face, or when he publicly praised the physical assault of a news reporter? I know his faithful followers stubbornly insist that he never mocked the disabled reporter, but the pictures of him mimicking the reporter clearly contradict their denial.

 

[Kenny]

A foetus that cannot survive outside of the mother's womb is not "an innocent child." This is some you do be using words inappropriately -- so that you can get to the result you want

I view this as a double edged sword for two reasons:

1. It could be said that you are using words inappropriately so that you can get the result you want. It was called a baby in the womb for millenniums
2. A child cannot survive alone outside the womb without adult help even as it cannot survive inside the womb without adult help

It is important to remember that many foetuses spontaneously abort all on their own.

I'm not sure how this even applies. Almost apples and oranges. There are babies that die from Infant Death Syndrome.... and? so? Does that mean they aren't innocent or aren't babies? Just don't see the application of what you are saying.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is not a justification to kill the child, which is what it is. When a woman is pregnant she is with child, she is going to have a baby.

Has nothing to do with justifying killing the child in the womb by abortion .

Those women should make sure they cannot get pregnant if their intention isn’t to have children anyway. If women don’t want kids then make sure you can’t so the end result won’t be the killing of a life in the womb.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Trump because he is pro-life. I don’t agree with the position you are taking or other candidates for President who are pro abortion and there was talk up until the term of delivery from some Democrats.

It's so easy for you, isn't it? I'll bet, by the way, you can't get pregnant.

But a woman who is raped -- say by close kin? What then? Should she have said, "um, could you hold on several days so that I can take my birth control pills and get to the pregnancy immune stage, then I'll come back and you can have at me then?"

Or should women who are not planning on having a baby keep themselves constantly out of the possibility. Any room in your black and white morality for chastity belts, or being locked up by wicked step-mothers in towers away from the world?

Even just mistakes, things that weren't meant to happen -- how harsh should the penalty be -- a lifetime? Or maybe, you think kids should be carried to term, and if the mother doesn't want them, well somebody will adopt them. But you know what, a lot of the time -- nobody will. Nobody adopted me, and the Children's aid dumped me on the streets at 17 to fend for myself, totally unprepared for the world.

Well, naturally, I would expect black-and-white moralists to think that was just for me -- after all, I was foolish enough choose a womb that didn't want me.

You know, there are reasons why I generally do not like, nor seek friendship with, people who are "believers" of your kind. They are so often so unkind, unjust and unfair -- all in the name of their "God of Love."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It's so easy for you, isn't it? I'll bet, by the way, you can't get pregnant.

But a woman who is raped -- say by close kin? What then? Should she have said, "um, could you hold on several days so that I can take my birth control pills and get to the pregnancy immune stage, then I'll come back and you can have at me then?"

Or should women who are not planning on having a baby keep themselves constantly out of the possibility. Any room in your black and white morality for chastity belts, or being locked up by wicked step-mothers in towers away from the world?

Even just mistakes, things that weren't meant to happen -- how harsh should the penalty be -- a lifetime? Or maybe, you think kids should be carried to term, and if the mother doesn't want them, well somebody will adopt them. But you know what, a lot of the time -- nobody will. Nobody adopted me, and the Children's aid dumped me on the streets at 17 to fend for myself, totally unprepared for the world.

Well, naturally, I would expect black-and-white moralists to think that was just for me -- after all, I was foolish enough choose a womb that didn't want me.

You know, there are reasons why I generally do not like, nor seek friendship with, people who are "believers" of your kind. They are so often so unkind, unjust and unfair -- all in the name of their "God of Love."

The abortion certainly isn't black and white, as pro-life conservatives seem to think.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I know his faithful followers stubbornly insist that he never mocked the disabled reporter, but the pictures of him mimicking the reporter clearly contradict their denial.

The media and some Hollywood actors said that, whenever I heard stories about Trump being racist for example the Charlottesville situation, and this one you referenced. I would go back and actually look at the transcripts where they were half truths. The media is good at that, while the OP are biblical reasons to support Trump without denigrating others, we should stick to that.
Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter And Other Lies From The Left

 

[Kooky]

Wait, I just had a light bulb moment. Don't sow baby seeds so you don't get pregnant? Hmmmm.. innovative, organic, logical, out of the box thinking.

Let me guess, your health insurance providers are named "don't get sick" and "don't have accidents".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I view this as a double edged sword for two reasons:

1. It could be said that you are using words inappropriately so that you can get the result you want. It was called a baby in the womb for millenniums
2. A child cannot survive alone outside the womb without adult help even as it cannot survive inside the womb without adult help

You know, or you should know by now, that there is a very great difference between "surviving without adult help" and "unable to survive -- even with all the help that medical science can devise." And before the third trimester, that is currently the state of things.

I'm not sure how this even applies. Almost apples and oranges. There are babies that die from Infant Death Syndrome.... and? so? Does that mean they aren't innocent or aren't babies? Just don't see the application of what you are saying.

Look, you also know -- or you should, because we've been communicating since before this board -- that I am not in favour of abortion. I do not like the way that abortion is all-too-often used these days, which is as an sort of "after-the-fact" contraceptive.

You know that I am hugely in favour of sensible sex education of children (which terrifies the bejeebers out of far too many religious), and the use of safe sexual practices -- which the well-educated would know, including contraception (which again, many religious hate). And therein lies part of the problem -- the religious types that mostly hate abortion ALSO hate women having the right to use their own bodies as they wish (preventing pregnancy for example), using her own knowledge of human sexuality and LOVE which she could have been taught while young, but usually isn't.

The problem is, and I've seen it over and over and over again sneaking out in the posts of religious writers on these places, sex is far too often seen as somehow bad. Think of the general connotation around the word "carnal." Although it simply refers to the physicality of our bodies, it has a generally nasty nose to it, as you can see from this "list of related words: lewd, sensuous, wanton, animal, bodily, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, genital, impure, lascivious, lecherous, libidinous, licentious, lustful" which I took from dictionary.com

The history of humanity, with its almost literally endless stories of how sex has led people astray, should show you that all the religious will in the world is not going to force humans to suppress their innate sexual nature -- it is "built in," it is an innate part of who we are, and it is an insanely strong part, as well.

Therefore, we would do well to learn to treat it as part of us, and therefore with respect -- and education. And permit help when, sometimes, our appetites get the better of us. We allow such help, for example, when we eat something that makes us sick because of gluttony (also part of human nature -- see "holiday overeating in America").

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The media and some Hollywood actors said that, whenever I heard stories about Trump being racist for example the Charlottesville situation, and this one you referenced. I would go back and actually look at the transcripts where they were half truths. The media is good at that, while the OP are biblical reasons to support Trump without denigrating others, we should stick to that.
Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter And Other Lies From The Left

You should choose another source, one that's not strongly biased toward conservative causes like the Investor's Business Daily.

Investor's Business Daily Media Bias Rating - AllSides

Investors Business Daily - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[ElishaElijah]

You should choose another source, one that's not strongly biased toward conservative causes like the Investor's Business Daily.

Investor's Business Daily Media Bias Rating - AllSides

Investors Business Daily - Media Bias/Fact Check

View attachment 58537

View attachment 58538

View attachment 58539

You can attack the source if you like but the fact remains, the media reporting on the situation you posted was false about Trump as many were.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You can attack the source if you like but the fact remains, the media reporting on the situation you posted was false about Trump as many were.

I can understand why you would think that is usually the case since you're a Trump supporter, especially if you get your news from right-wing propaganda pundits like the Investor's Business Daily, Breitbart, and Fox News. As far as the picture I posted of Trump mimicking the disabled reporter, a picture is worth a thousand words. On a related note, I honestly don't expect Trump supporters, to admit that he mimicked the reporter, because they've sent five years overlooking and stubbornly defending his controversial behavior, with lame excuses like "I voted for a president, not a pastor." I'll concede that the left news media has been misleading at times when reporting about Trump, but he brought their contempt for him down upon himself with his loud-mouth obnoxious behavior. He reaps what he sows, and I don't feel sorry for him. FWIW, I think the media is messed up, whether it's left or right.

 

[Kooky]

Logic is out the window when hormones are in the driver's seat.

Bold of you to assume that logic is ever in the window in those situations.