Trump call to punish women for abortions

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LifeisGrand

actually, I am a close to 60 year old widow, and a mother of three adult sons...
I kind of remember the pre-roe days, I also remember the many large families of 6 or 7, sometimes more kids.
I also know my family's history, there were quite of few women in it that well, died in childbirth...
I also know what it's like to not have the funds to have adequate medical attention, to be told by the gov't that you make too much money to get any help and well be told by mathematics that you certainly can't afford it.
want to hear a good story...
first I was one of those christians that was kind of brainwashed into thinking that women were supposed to be subservient to their husbands.... I felt it was wrong to deny his sex.. well after the third child, I kind of started unbrainwashing myself, but well, sex was still a pretty important part in the marriage to my husband. well, I went through monopause without really noticing, or at least I assume that was what happened. this was also during the time that I had quit my job because of problems with me feet, which well eventually one ankle broke and I was left in bed being told by a surgeon that I would need to come up with a few thousand dollars as a down payment before he would do the surgery... well, after going through all that, I wasn't a very happy person to say the least. when my monthly stopped arriving, I told my husband I thought I was pregnant, and since we couldn't afford the medical care, no, I wasn't going to a doctor. Eventually I figured out more than likely I wasn't pregnant, and well, still didn't go to the doctors. so well, either it was menopause or something else. but I made danged sure that my husband knew that if I was pregnant, he would be delivering that baby!
so that's my story.

I love you. I am not too far from where you are (in age). But I bow my hat to you.

I am sorry for where I failed to know you. And I thank you, because you made me know you.

I know I know you more than most people do. And it is because of this conversation. It also means, what I said before.



It is true. If I could talk with you aside from here....You know I will tell you something I learned only today.....You know God only allows us to live for today, he never made anyone, to live for tomorrow.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Make a better world. You just want women to give birth to little humans so they can slave and war for you and own her.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Make a better world. You just want women to give birth to little humans so they can slave and war for you and own her.

NO. That is not me. Sorry. It is perhaps someone you know? But no, it is not me, what you proclaim. I forgive youl

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Yes it is you. You don't care that is is the law. You don't care that ii is not your body. You know everything and the woman is stupid. I know how you guys like Trump think. You own their tumors and cancers too, or just the part where she gets pregnant. See Donald loves women too, the pretty ones.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Make a better world. You just want women to give birth to little humans so they can slave and war for you and own her.

Even if what you need to forget is the past. God does not remember that. Does he? No. He does not. We are stupid creatures, and he know it. You are okay. Even if you weren't. But do you understand?

a reply to: LifeisGrand

I understand the law and I understand we are already judged because we die.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: LifeisGrand

I understand the law and I understand we are already judged because we die.

But we are not yet dead. We are alive!!! Do not stop thinking. I don't. And I do know this. I love you. Do you understand that?


It means I love what I don't really understand. But I have faith in. Do you still doubt? I don't. That is where we differ.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Ok sweetie good night.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: kerrichin

Then as I said, exceptions would have to be considered.

BOTH sides have an argument.

It is not black or white. The right to personal choice should not trump the right of all for social balance.

As it stands late term abortions just because you can are wrong to me.

Maybe, if everything is normal, and you simply had sex for fun, which is an act of REPRODUCTION, then maybe you are too many mornings after for a quick fix.

Unless you would die, are being forced and so on....then an abortion is wrong.

but not allowing the woman to have an abortion because YOU decided YOU didnt agree with her reason is forcing her to continue on with the pregnancy.
you think she is automatically going to love that child, and if its the case she is using abortion as a means of contraceptive then would you really want her bringing this child up and adoption lets just throw another child into the system and pot luck it actually gets adopted.
if she keeps it thers the resentment and possible abuse tot he child, children know when they arent loved or wanted they arent stupid

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: dawnstar

Give us a real life example. Not something made up. Preferably a video, if not some pictures with a story that can be backed up. And not just one. Give us a lot. Because you want to murder a lot of humans on your story.

Well? Start providing evidence.

heres a few for your pleasure

woman dead after being denied abortion

death by pregnancy


more


more and more

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: mOjOm

None of it is play. It is all real. You may brush it away, in your mind. But I will stand firm. And so will science.

Frankly, your opinion on the matter - - can blow in the wind. That's how much I care about you trying to take some moral high ground.

If its not OK with you, don't do it.

Just stay out of my way.

You sound like Trump. Bravo.

a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't think so. Annee is not talking about rescinding the right to an abortion with punishment like Donald. He already said he liked punishments like waterboarding.

a reply to: MOMof3

He already said he liked punishments like waterboarding.

Just to be clear, Trump said he liked waterboarding/torture for "terrorists" in order to get information. He never said he would use waterboarding to punish people. So. while Trump would not waterboard a woman for getting an abortion, he may waterboard her to find out who performed the abortion for her!

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I don't think so. Annee is not talking about rescinding the right to an abortion with punishment like Donald. He already said he liked punishments like waterboarding.

The language was very 'Trumpian'.
I think she secretly votes for him

Trump didn't talk about rescinding the right to an abortion with punishment either... at least not what I heard in the interview. He was given a hypothetical question based on a scenario where abortion was already illegal.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MOMof3

He already said he liked punishments like waterboarding.

Just to be clear, Trump said he liked waterboarding/torture for "terrorists" in order to get information. He never said he would use waterboarding to punish people. So. while Trump would not waterboard a woman for getting an abortion, he may waterboard her to find out who performed the abortion for her!

Erm. I think its a stretch to call a woman who has an abortion a terrorist! LOL

a reply to: UKTruth

You seem like a thoughtful person. Does this train of thought on one issue, clearly set in law, by Trump seem ah, disjointed?

"At this moment the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way," Trump said Friday in an interview with CBS's John Dickerson on "Face the Nation." The full interview will air Sunday morning.
But soon after the comments became public, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Trump was giving "an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now -- until he is president. Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here."

Should I believe what you say Trump says or should I believe him and his representatives?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I doubt Trump is shooting for banning abortions.

Trump is running on the GOP platform, whose agenda is to ban all elective abortions. And yes, Trump has openly stated, on numerous occasion, that he would ban elective abortion, if he could.

Take away PP's govt money is what he wants.

The government doesn't pay for abortions. Planned Parenthood's Title X government funds are reimbursements for regular medical services like pap smears, breast and pelvic exams, birth control prescriptions and IUD insertions, SDI screening and treatments, etc.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

You seem like a thoughtful person. Does this train of thought on one issue, clearly set in law, by Trump seem ah, disjointed?

"At this moment the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way," Trump said Friday in an interview with CBS's John Dickerson on "Face the Nation." The full interview will air Sunday morning.
But soon after the comments became public, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Trump was giving "an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now -- until he is president. Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here."

Should I believe what you say Trump says or should I believe him and his representatives?

I think you should gather more information. Trumps views that I have read do follow the general GOP approach, however he also talks about exceptions. Abortion is such a tough issue to treat in a black and white manner (impossible in my view) - just don't think this is about legal vs not legal at a macro level.

The only way to have a proper debate on the subject, in my view, is to list out all the scenarios that one should consider and have clarity in the law - enough that you cover 95% of cases - and then treat the unique cases on a case by case basis.

You just can't get a full policy position from an interview sound bite and actually, I don't think Trump has a full policy position yet.

There seems to be a lot of lifting interview comments and using them as 100% proof of a broad position in which details can be colored iin according to political bias - not just with Trump but for all the candidates. I tend not to see it that way. Words can be interpreted in many ways - something you think is clear, I might not. I want detail laid out and believe that is the only way you can truly understand someones position.

What we have right now is an election of sound bites and bias - on both sides - creating the debate at a macro level which is not particularly useful.

Take the statement you have shown as an example. It says he will 'change the law and allow states to protect the unborn'. Which laws? What are the exceptions? What are the specific punishments for breaking the law? How will breaches of the law be reported? Will men get more of a say than they do today? How will health issues and risks be determined? I could go on, but I know there are many issues to discuss beyond a broad legal/illegal statement.

a reply to: UKTruth

The only way to have a proper debate on the subject, in my view, is to list out all the scenarios that one should consider and have clarity in the law - enough that you cover 95% of cases - and then treat the unique cases on a case by case basis. You just can't get a full policy position from an interview sound bite and actually, I don't think Trump has a full policy position yet.

So, you think the policy outlined by SCOTUS in Roe V Wade needs to be debated? You want to take the choice to terminate a pregnancy away for 95% of women seeking one, and only deal with abortion on a case by case emergency situation?

This is a problem for me, and why I'll never vote Republican, ever!

"Will men get more of a say than they do today?" Say over what?