Abortion tussle at debate was wow

a reply to: zazzafrazz

yep...you could be right on the button with that. One thing's for sure...he doesn't seem that interested in winning this election.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The way he answered that issue was ignorant and horrible I am certain that he lost tons of votes over it. If there was nothing else in his entire run that was bad that by itself would have lost him the race.

I missed the first part of the debate, and therefore whatever was said. what was said?

Basically, elect him and he will install judges to overturn roe vs wade.

transcript of debate It is worth reading it will make you laugh. Then you may get depressed when you come to the realization that those are the two that can become president.

He burned so many possible voters last night that I think it is like everyone is saying that he is trying to build a viewer base for his TV channel because he sure wasn't trying to earn new votes.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

The man has no interest in being president.

He has started a media empire on the GOPs dime.

What fools.

I think he thought seriously (for a nano second) about being president only when it looked like he was winning.

He's all about winning. He could give 2 craps about this country.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bone75

So painful heart attacks, strokes, seizures, struggling for every breath, and unable to eat are something you would say is ok to put a newborn through? You'd chose that for your son? Your daughter? Your dog?

Suffering is a fundamental and unavoidable element of the human experience, but then so is bliss. Who are you to decide that the child's experiences and observations between heart attacks and strokes won't be worth the heart attacks and strokes to the child?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: randomthoughts12

I'm anti-abortion and religious and that's still bullsh*t to me.

It's the pregnant woman's right. No one else.

I call bullsh*t on that. Granted the woman carries the baby, but what about the other half that created that life?

So the father should have no say in the life he has also created?

a reply to: olaru12

And they will continually sit on the sidelines until they get over it.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Puppylove
Non-issue on either side. Is purely a smoke and mirrors issue. Abortion issue voters are the most out of touch voters because they are deluded enough to actually believe this is still a real issue. It doesn't matter who wins, none of them are touching it, they don't care. They know abortion issue voters will vote based on it even though it's been a non issue for ever now.

Non issue?

Then why is it the litmus test for the GOP...?...pro life or get out of the Republican party. That's not a non issue!

www.campaignsandelections.com...

Overturning Roe v Wade has always been the goal of conservative candidates and Trump is no exception. Non issue...not hardly!!

Because it's a non issue until they are elected and actually ban it.

a reply to: Nucleardoom

So the father should have no say in the life he has also created?

No none at all.

originally posted by: Nucleardoom

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: randomthoughts12

I'm anti-abortion and religious and that's still bullsh*t to me.

It's the pregnant woman's right. No one else.

I call bullsh*t on that. Granted the woman carries the baby, but what about the other half that created that life?

So the father should have no say in the life he has also created?

Children don't have fathers until they escape the womb.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
Hillary could not deny that the law gives the ability to take the baby 1 day before birth.

"That is not what happens in these cases" is what she said.

Donald clearly pointed out only god has that right.

This just gave me the creeps about her even more.

trump spouted a bunch of lies about abortion, your lack of education or plain stupidity kind of ends the thread before it started.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
Hillary could not deny that the law gives the ability to take the baby 1 day before birth.

"That is not what happens in these cases" is what she said.

Donald clearly pointed out only god has that right.

This just gave me the creeps about her even more.

trump spouted a bunch of lies about abortion, your lack of education or plain stupidity kind of ends the thread before it started.

He was talking about Hillary's position on abortion and he was correct. Get it right before you go calling people stupid... stupid.

a reply to: Puppylove

I feel kind of bad for the Republican Party this issue has been a thorn in the side of the republican party for a long time, and they have no good way to get out of it. I don't feel that bad though both parties should be destroyed anyway. All the abortion issue is, is a good smear tactic for the Democrats to use against the Republicans knowing they are backed into a corner on this issue.

BS....It was the Silent Majority, Republican Christian Right that created this issue to try and win converts. It blew up in their face.

Notice even on this very Thread it's the conservatives that brought it up. They just won't learn apparently.

Donald Trump certainly didn't help the cause with his dumbass statements. Rigged, my azz....time to take some responsibility for running a thoughtless, halfassed, divisive campaign. It didn't work for palin/mcCain, It didn't work for Mitt and it won't work for Trump. Crybabies....

Even though I work for the GOP, and am still a registered Republican...perhaps that's why I can see their faults and foolish strategy. The Local office I work for is composed of fine straight up Republicans. Perhaps Trump might follow their lead instead of being a misogynist creep.

Anyway they provide a beautiful office/studio for me and the crew, $$$$ and I'm thankful for that.

a reply to: Bone75

He was doing what he always does, scare mongering...using shock tactics...and lying, blatantly.

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: Bone75

He was doing what he always does, scare mongering...using shock tactics...and lying, blatantly.

So you're saying that Hillary doesn't support a woman's right to abort her child all the way up until the day its born?

a reply to: Grimpachi

When the father can carry the child in his womb - then he can have the ultimate say.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
Hillary could not deny that the law gives the ability to take the baby 1 day before birth.

"That is not what happens in these cases" is what she said.

Donald clearly pointed out only god has that right.

This just gave me the creeps about her even more.

The Don's ignorance and willingness to promotes ignorance regarding women's health and procreation issues is stunning, and his position on those issues is a deal breaker for American women across the board.

a reply to: Bone75

So your answer is yes, you would choose to put your newborn child through endless suffering until they die. Bet you wouldn't do that to your dog.

So a dog doesn't deserve to suffer but a human fetus does. Wow, that's messed up.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: Bone75

He was doing what he always does, scare mongering...using shock tactics...and lying, blatantly.

So you're saying that Hillary doesn't support a woman's right to abort her child all the way up until the day its born?

Can you give an example of why a woman would be choosing to abort on her delivery day?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: Bone75

He was doing what he always does, scare mongering...using shock tactics...and lying, blatantly.

So you're saying that Hillary doesn't support a woman's right to abort her child all the way up until the day its born?

No. What she specifically said was that restrictions could legally be created on abortion provided that they account for the health and safety of those involved.

In other words, you can pass a law that says: No abortions after 12 weeks except in cases where the health of those involved is threatened.

But you can't pass a law that says: No abortions after 12 weeks, period.

The latter law takes the decision out of the hands of the woman and her doctors and puts it in the hands of some bureaucrat who does not have to deal with the consequences.

And for the record, as has been posted multiple times, late term abortions are very rare and always involve health/safety issues.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Honestly my only take is the father should be given, like the mother some time to decide whether or not to absolve themselves of all responsibility, and that the mother should be required to give them that opportunity.

If the father within the time allotted chooses to absolve themselves of all responsibility they also abort all rights to the child in any way. No child support owed and no rights to the child.

If the mother has the choice to have or not have the child, to take responsibility or not take responsibility. The father should have the same choice. If the mother knowing the father has absolved himself chooses to carry to term it's her choice and her responsibility alone, she doesn't get to against his will force responsibility on him, and rob him for 18 years.

The woman has the choice to absolve responsibility, not carry the child, determine to put the child up for adoption, any damn thing she practically wants. While the father is 100% confined to taking responsibility for her choice no matter what it is.

I'm pro-choice. I however, believe that to be fair and just, the father needs to have their right to choose respected as well. He can't decide whether the mother aborts or not, etc, but he should damn well at least have the opportunity to absolve himself before the child is born while the mother still has the choice as well.