Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yea that dictator thing. A sure sign of a political party seeped in sheer lunacy.
-
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!
New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Numerous people have pointed out to you that Harris is advocating for restoring Roe v. Wade, which does permit restrictions. You have failed to show any evidence whatsoever that she is advocating for unrestricted abortions. Don't show up at half time and expect to play the game. You lost.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
He was telling you how the world sees Trump, not how the Democrats see Trump.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
We have Farage waiting in the wings.
Fortunately he is a loser.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Men are lucky. For most of our lives we do not have to put up with that. For women it is far worse than just fingers.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's hope that the same applies to Trump.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That would seem to be the party supporting him.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Nope that would be solely the party that accuses him.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. Trump brings that on himself. You are trying to blame others for Trump's sins.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Good question. And who best to answer it, a politician, you, me .... or maybe a medical professional?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Yeah I know you don't like to hear it but sorry, I don't care. Different thread. Also I don't believe I posted anything about repeat abortions but I could be wrong.
Does a fetus or baby have less of a right
to live if the result of rape or incest?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I wouldn't choose it myself but that's not even my point. My point is that rape and incest make up less than two percent of the causes of abortion.
Doesn't answer my question.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK. I will spell it out for you. Over 98 percent of abortions could be prevented because it's incredibly rare that rape or incest cause the desire to have an abortion.
Yet these "pro-life" don't protect the lives of pregnant mothers when the pregnancies go wrong. You guys treat human reproduction as if it is a perfect process that never has any problems. That is what makes you guys naive and not pro-life in the big picture. ou guys are too ideological and idealistic to provide any leadership.
Why don't we see you "pro-life" extremists ever support universal healthcare for people? The hypocrisy of right wingers makes them complicit with the deaths of any preventable deaths that universal healthcare would solve. Of course you keep quiet, that's because the "pro-life" movements isn't really pro-life, they are just anti-abortion.
This is the bias the pro-life side believes. You guys assign meaning to fertilized cells that isn't recognized legally. It's certainly a morally ambiguous issue, and no one likes abortion. But there has to be compromise where it comes to bodily autonomy andf reproduction.
Let's note that about 70% of fertilized eggs never get implanted. So if you think a God exists it kills many more than women who take the morning after pill.
And you guys seldom address the issue of when pregnancies go wrong and the fetus won't survive. Your rigid idealism doesn't allow for the morality of abortion when it is medically necessary. That's why your side fails over this debate.
Then set aside your religious beliefs and idealisms, and understand the compromise of liberties in a society. Roe v Wade allowed for the life of the fetus in the third trimester, but extremists didn't think that was enough.
I want to understand your values.
Re-stating a fact devoid of meaning
in a context tells me nothing.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Thanks for sharing. I have no interest in debating abortion (and to be honest I only read a sentence or two of your post), I regret even mentioning it. It is one of those topics in which a debate goes nowhere and just ends in name calling and ugliness.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't know where you are coming from but I will tell you where I am coming from. Not only am I "pro life" but I am also from a family who definitely believes in adoption, and we practice what we preach.
Also, my daughter was pregnant at 19 and she was unmarried and rightly so. She had fantastic care, through her own well, she didn't even have insurance but she income qualified for fantastic care, better than many people in fact. And her baby was supposed to be born with severely underdeveloped kidneys (didn't happen though two ultrasounds showed it). So not only was her regular doctor there (early) but there was also a top pediatrician there as well. Who we didn't need.
Oh and as for an infant not having any rights legally, well, it does. Did you know that in most states, if not all states, an unborn baby can inherit things from his or her mother or father, for instance? IT doesn't even have to be in the third trimester!
Pregnancy is an unusual circumstance, in that pro-lifers believe that the states should step up and protect the lives of the unborn. Pro abortionists believe that the main issue is bodily autonomy of the mother. So the two will never come to an agreement.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I already said I would not personally choose to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest but since over 98 percent of abortions would be forbidden, I'm OK with that.