“Significant” Trump Slippage in Iowa Presidential Race….
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
We do. Pro cells. Anti little girl rape victims and women who are suffering in a pregnancy that’s killing them.
Idiot brigade finally got out of bed I see. Have a good day fellas.
Trump fatigue is a crazy concept to me. You have this demonstrably crazy ranting nutcase that we've had to endure for the better part of a decade and we'll finally rid ourselves of him because a small set of voters in the middle decide they were tired of him. Who the **** are these people. (lol)
I will say the biggest obstacle to my voting D is abortion. I was swayed by a sermon from David Platt in which he asked some pretty simple questions (some are my own meandering thoughts).
1. Where do babies go when they are aborted? I can’t see a scenario where they have a soul and go to hell, do you?
2. What about the parents?
3. Who really needs “saving”?
I am firmly against abortion but there is no legislative solution. The parents choosing abortion are the people we need to help, not vilify. Save them, save everyone. Force the kids to be born into a world that is hostile from the onset, save no one. It Is impossible to separate sacrifice and the gospel, and yet how many have lifted anything other than a voting lever to help solve this issue?
1. Where do babies go when they are aborted? I can’t see a scenario where they have a soul and go to hell, do you?
2. What about the parents?
3. Who really needs “saving”?
I am firmly against abortion but there is no legislative solution. The parents choosing abortion are the people we need to help, not vilify. Save them, save everyone. Force the kids to be born into a world that is hostile from the onset, save no one. It Is impossible to separate sacrifice and the gospel, and yet how many have lifted anything other than a voting lever to help solve this issue?
Jesus, Iowa is still filled with tavern hawk idiots that think this way.
Not speaking for Doobi, but I suspect he, like me and most Republicans don’t object to abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the health/life of the mother. So, your passionate examples here don’t ring true.
the trouble is that most anti-abortion legislation that is/has been written either don't allow for those exceptions or have them written so narrowly that doctors are afraid to perform abortions that they believe are medically necessary for fear of being prosecuted/sued.
It also has had the domino effect of reducing reproductive care options available to people but these ignorant idiots don’t seem to get that.
Well then that’s a problem with the legalese, medical profession, etc. If in a doctor’s well-reasoned judgment…the life of the mother is in jeopardy than common sense dictates an abortion. However, I’m not a single issue voter so getting away from this devisive abortion issue, my criteria for POTUS are big picture issues of national security and economy.
Why not? Murdering babies has some okay exceptions within your moral system?
What are your thoughts on the Harris tariff plan of 10-20% rates across the board with respect to the economy? That's bad right?
So you admit you’re just spouting wingnut horseshit without a thought in your head. That’s what was apparent but I wanted to give you a chance to explain it.
Pretty much my stance. The solution is to make them unnecessary through comprehensive, age-appropriate, sex ed starting in the early primary grades. Then make condoms easily accessible from middle school up. Those are exactly the kinds of programs the “pro-lifers” throw fits over. It’s like they WANT young girls to get pregnant so the abortion issue remains their hot topic.
You are full of shit. I’ll ask one more time…why are the lives of children conceived through rape not innocent enough to protect? Why does the life of a mother facing health consequences override the innocence of her child?
This is your delineation…explain how you arrived here. My guess is you’ll just deflect again because you realize you have no basis for it…you just think it plays well. Prove me wrong.
That’s not the issue. He says we shouldn’t be killing innocent embryos. He can’t explain why the embryos or fetuses of his exceptions don’t qualify for protection. Why are they NOT innocent enough to protect?
Similar threads
