RINOS and NEVER TRUMPERS

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark121359 said:
Then I would question their judgment. Surely, nothing can compare to the enormous threat that almost any candidate from the Democrat Party would have on those who are still in the womb…no?
Click to expand...
Since 1972, Republicans have been in power multiple times.

They haven’t eliminated abortion.

Democrats have been in power multiple times.

Abortions didn’t soar during those periods.

So…
 
Last edited:
And the real misrepresentation is that Dems want to kill babies. They do not. The abortion issue is complex. Like it or not it is established law which has not changed through each administration. It is true that Dems focus more on life this side of the womb. The rights of the fully developed, fully conscious women, the rights of the infant have their priority. The rights of the life in the womb were diminished by SCOTUS. Dems support that decision and go with it.
 
Last edited:
The republicans have tried to end abortion, but without the supreme court it just will not happen.

The only way that abortion will come to an end is when the Constitution gives personhood to the unborn child and that personhood happens at conception.
 
I think you are right and that will not happen until the majority of people demand it.
 
Well said. Demonizing the pro-CHOICE side only breeds antagonism.

Moreover, the anti-abortionists do not really want to end abortions. They want to do it using one and only one method: “total abstinence” - because everything else is “immoral”. To separate sex from conception is “immoral”. So abortions are not REALLY to be minimized or eliminated.

The status quo is preferable in their eyes than making abortions as rare as possible, if the method is contraception. It is better to have abortions than using artificial ways to separate sex from conception.
The fact that abstinence is unnatural does not concern them.

And then they are surprised that they have no followers. 😉
 
Mark121359 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
…or perhaps just a person who recognized the existential threat Trump’s corrupting influence has
Click to expand...
Then I would question their judgment. Surely, nothing can compare to the enormous threat that almost any candidate from the Democrat Party would have on those who are still in the womb…no?
Click to expand...
The Democrats are not the ones threatening the lives in the womb. It is the mothers who decide to abort and the doctors who help them. These are the real guilty parties.
 
That is politically incorrect. We are not allowed to blame the mothers. Even the pro-lifers don’t blame them.
 
sallybutler said:
That is politically incorrect. We are not allowed to blame the mothers. Even the pro-lifers don’t blame them.
Click to expand...
That’s my point. The pro-lifers don’t blame the mothers. But they do blame the Democrats, who had less to do with the abortion than the mother.
 
Huh? Just because a Republican nominated a justice and the were confirmed doesnt mean they voted as a conservative. O’conner, Kennedy, and Souter are examples of justices that were appointed as conservatives and become more and more liberal as time progressed. Robert is now one that well vote as a liberal as often as he does conservative.
 
PaulinVA said:
Since 1972, Republicans have been in power multiple times.

They haven’t eliminated abortion.

Democrats have been in power multiple times.

Abortions didn’t soar during those periods.

So…
Click to expand...
So…irrelevant, as you well know.

It takes a lot to reverse a Supreme Court declaration that something is a “constitutional right” which is what the Court did with abortion. A constitutional convention is nearly impossible because it would require blue states to convene one as well as red states. The only other options are to appoint prolife justices, which the Repubs have done and the Dems never do, and also to do as much “around the edges” on the state level that can be accomplished. And much has been accomplished at the state level, like shutting down abortion clinics, defunding Planned Parenthood, refusing to fund abortion clinics. Banning “partial birth” abortions is another. Only Repubs have done that. When Democrats challenged the bans, it went ot the Supreme Court. In that decision, only Repubs voted to uphold the bans, and all Dems wanted partial birth abortion to be a “constitutional right” that states could not prohibit.

Eventually prolife will prevail, but the Dem party will fight it all the way unless it changes dramatically. The only way the Dems will divorce themselves from abortion is by losing elections. If all Catholics voted prolife, it would happen. But some Catholics support abortion with their votes, so the Dem party continues to be a servant of killing children.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The Democrats are not the ones threatening the lives in the womb. It is the mothers who decide to abort and the doctors who help them. These are the real guilty parties.
Click to expand...
So, if mothers were prosecuted, would you refuse to vote for abortion supporting politicians?
 
phil3 said:
The republicans have tried to end abortion, but without the supreme court it just will not happen.
Click to expand...
Roe vs Wade is based on Due Process and Right to Privacy
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life. Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated this right.
Click to expand...
Reversing Roe vs Wade is inherently dangerous to every American. Any issue relying on Due Process and or Right to Privacy as a defense or offense could be rejected citing the reversal.
phil3 said:
The only way that abortion will come to an end is when the Constitution gives personhood to the unborn child and that personhood happens at conception.
Click to expand...
And I do believe that would require a Constitutional Convention of a sorts;
Both House and Senate must approve by 2/3 votes.
34 States Legislatures must applicate.
38 States must ratify.

IMHO? Probability of that happening is slim to none.
 
Last edited:
If you can find me things trump supports that would give the President autocratic powers then I would agree. I am looking at what Biden and Harris support. They are statist as shown in the commonly held definition.

I can not find any position that either of them hold at doesnt look to give power to the federal government.
pnewton said:
That is your opinion, your definition, and your judgement, all of which could be faulty. You know the heart of none but yourself. Such a sweeping statement is so ridiculous I cannot imagine any reason for making it except an attempt to bully people by name-calling. I got to admit it angers me for people who know nothing of me, or others who will vote for Biden, and will not vote for him, tell others what they are. Consider the Golden Rule. Do you want people to say that you are racist based on your vote, or a fascist, or really any derogatory name? A little more charity please.

I may well vote for him. I am not, by your definition a statist. Therefore, your statement is false.
Click to expand...
It is not my definition, just google it. As it being my opinion and judgement, yep. but then again 99% of all the post on this board are opinions.
LeafByNiggle said:
…or perhaps just a person who recognized the existential threat Trump’s corrupting influence has.
Click to expand...
Trump is the least corrupt President in Modern history.
 
Last edited:
phil3 said:
If you can find me things trump supports that would give the President autocratic powers then I would agree.
Click to expand...
Trump does not achieve autocratic powers by supporting some policy proposal or another. He just takes it. And his party willingly gives it to him, no questions asked.
LeafByNiggle said:
…or perhaps just a person who recognized the existential threat Trump’s corrupting influence has.
Click to expand...
Trump is the least corrupt President in Modern history.
Click to expand...
I will go as far as to say that Trump is not as corrupt as James Buchanan, but that is all I can say in his defense.
 
Last edited:
This is a very dicey question to ask on this topic, but, has anyone considered the rights of a woman in the event of rape or incest – both of which are crimes committed upon her against her will?

I haven’t seen this mentioned, here, but I think it’s worth considering.

Rape and incest are completely different than a couple promiscuously having sex. In neither case is the woman afforded her right to say no. Her free will is completely usurped. She isn’t allowed to refuse the sex act.
 
JanR said:
This is a very dicey question to ask on this topic, but, has anyone considered the rights of a woman in the event of rape or incest – both of which are crimes committed upon her against her will?

I haven’t seen this mentioned, here, but I think it’s worth considering.

Rape and incest are completely different than a couple promiscuously having sex. In neither case is the woman afforded her right to say no. Her free will is completely usurped. She isn’t allowed to refuse the sex act.
Click to expand...
The Church teaching on that question is that rape is a terrible offense against a woman, and that having to bear a child that she did not consent to conceive is a further offense against that woman. But the killing of the child of that rape is not a justified remedy to those offenses.
 
Last edited:
Yep, rape creates one victim. It’s a terrible tragedy. But if you then kill the resulting baby, you create two victims - both innocent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top