Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
The culture of death
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Freeda Womb
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Enemies that you need to stand up against are not innocent.
People trying to harm you are not innocent.
People that threaten your life are not innocent.
People that put my kids life in danger are not innocent
I am against executions.
People that threaten police are not innocent
Killing a human life in the womb is not the same thing. They have done nothing to deserve being killed.
Are you pro choice on every issue? Prolife is being against abortion only. That is where the term originated and what it means. To say I need to be pro life on every issue as you define it is dishonest because they are not the same issue.
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how they weep for st George of fentanyl but cheer the cold blooded murder of unarmed Ashli Babbitt and the killing of babies in the womb.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Can you talk about an issue without insults or references to Trump?
Now, I cannot find anywhere she supports restriction on abortions. She has said she supports the mother and doctor to decide what is best. That means no restrictions. If she never talks about restrictions then I can only conclude she does not want any restrictions. If I am wrong then show me where she wants any restrictions.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
So what restrictions does she support?She has stated that she wants to codify Roe v Wade, so yes, she is for some restrictions post-viability.
Where VP-Elect Kamala Harris Stands on Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Breaking down the vice president-elect's policy.www.harpersbazaar.com
We Never Know
No Slack
Are you sure she is ok with restrictions?She has stated that she wants to codify Roe v Wade, so yes, she is for some restrictions post-viability.
Where VP-Elect Kamala Harris Stands on Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Breaking down the vice president-elect's policy.
"As a Senator, she co-sponsored legislation that would ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and voted against a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Kamala Harris' Views on Abortion, the Economy, and More
Your guide to Kamala Harris’ major policy positions, from topics like LGBTQ+ rights to China to tech.
So it seems she is okay with just tossing the 20 week old and over 20 weeks out with the trash.
Week 20:
"Your baby can hear sounds by now -- your voice, heart, and your stomach growling, as well as sounds outside your body. The baby will cover its ears with its hands if a loud sound is made near you, and it may even become startled and "jump." The baby is moving often, too -- twisting, turning, wiggling, punching and kicking. If you're having twins, they're almost constantly stimulating each other to move. Your baby sleeps now and can be awakened by noise and movement. At this age, your baby loves to put feet and toes in their mouth! From head to heel, your baby is the length as a papaya -- 10 inches"
Last edited:
So you are in favor of forcing restrictions on people? I thought you were in support of personal freedom?
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
A baby is not the woman's body. Abortions are a restriction forced in babies.
I tagged you in post #31 where I explained why I agree with the state holding interest in viable fetuses and posted a scenerio.
She said she wants to codify Roe v Wade into law. That's all I got out of it. You can refer back to your own post #23 to your own remark that Roe v Wade allows State restrictions after viability. Please keep in mind that state restrictions must accommodate Federal guidelines such as EMTALA.
Here's the text of the Bill in question:Are you sure she is ok with restrictions?
"As a Senator, she co-sponsored legislation that would ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and voted against a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Kamala Harris' Views on Abortion, the Economy, and More
Your guide to Kamala Harris’ major policy positions, from topics like LGBTQ+ rights to China to tech.time.com
So it seems she is okay with just tossing the 20 week old and over 20 weeks out with the trash.
Week 20:
"Your baby can hear sounds by now -- your voice, heart, and your stomach growling, as well as sounds outside your body. The baby will cover its ears with its hands if a loud sound is made near you, and it may even become startled and "jump." The baby is moving often, too -- twisting, turning, wiggling, punching and kicking. If you're having twins, they're almost constantly stimulating each other to move. Your baby sleeps now and can be awakened by noise and movement. At this age, your baby loves to put feet and toes in their mouth! From head to heel, your baby is the length as a papaya -- 10 inches"
View attachment 96098
I would have voted against it as well, as it has limited exceptions and thereby excludes many medically necessary instances, while requiring extra unrelated procedures (that would have to occur in outside agencies) that would not always be available in dire emergency circumstances. Sorta like saying it provides for exceptions for emergencies, but the provisions for exceptions are generally unavailable in emergency situations. Supreme political double-speak.
We Never Know
No Slack
That link is hard on my old eyes. Green scattered highlights and narrow rows.
According to wiki..
"The bill prohibits all abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization unless the abortion is judged necessary to save the life of the mother; is the result of a rape of an adult woman who has received counseling or medical treatment for the rape; or is the result of an act of rape or incest against a minor that has been reported to a law enforcement agency or other government authority"
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - Wikipedia
So I don't see why she would vote against it being its does allow abortions for rape, mothers life in danger, incest, etc.
We Never Know
No Slack
Btw, here's how that link looks. Small narrow rows with green highlights. My old eyes didn't like it.
Here's a link to the pdf version of the bill:
Read the details of what is required for the exceptions, then think about the availability of these requirements. This will cause ERs to turn away pregnant women in medical distress because they can't meet the extra requirements to qualify for the listed exceptions. If they don't have the required provisions, they could face 5 years prison and/or fines, so of course they are going to turn pregnant women in distress away. More women and their fetuses are going to die if this bill were to go into effect.That link is hard on my old eyes. Green scattered highlights and narrow rows.
According to wiki..
"The bill prohibits all abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization unless the abortion is judged necessary to save the life of the mother; is the result of a rape of an adult woman who has received counseling or medical treatment for the rape; or is the result of an act of rape or incest against a minor that has been reported to a law enforcement agency or other government authority"
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
So I don't see why she would vote against it being its does allow abortions for rape, mothers life in danger, incest, etc.
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
How about you just list the requirements with a good readable link? Because they aren't in wiki.
see post #54. I will post the pdf link from that post again right here:
We Never Know
No Slack
Read parts of/ skipped through the PDF. Didnt see what you are talking about.
Can't you just "quote" the specifics of what you are talking about?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Yes, forcing restrictions on people to stop killing human life is acceptable, I am sure you believe this as well. No one has the liberty or freedom to kill a human life.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
That does not mean she if for restrictions. Roe said restrictions are allowed not mandatory.