Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dwyer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just informed that voting Trump in CO may very well benefit the third party candidate I almost voted for (McMullin). Politics are complicated. But, it was a nice bonus. I voted Trump because I woke up yesterday morning wondering if partial-birth abortions would increase. I live in a state where they are already legal. We had a woman once who wanted to use our free ultrasound services, but was looking into late-term abortion. Nope. Can’t live with the thought that I’d vote in such a way to increase that. Or with the thought that I’d put a party into power who is hostile to anything but state-funded education. I’d been seriously waffling back and forth. It was a balm to hear that my vote for Trump would benefit the guy I actually prefer. I didn’t know that until after I dropped off my ballot.
 
TCEL said:
I was just informed that voting Trump in CO may very well benefit the third party candidate I almost voted for (McMullin). Politics are complicated. But, it was a nice bonus. I voted Trump because I woke up yesterday morning wondering if partial-birth abortions would increase. I live in a state where they are already legal. We had a woman once who wanted to use our free ultrasound services, but was looking into late-term abortion. Nope. Can’t live with the thought that I’d vote in such a way to increase that. Or with the thought that I’d put a party into power who is hostile to anything but state-funded education. I’d been seriously waffling back and forth. It was a balm to hear that my vote for Trump would benefit the guy I actually prefer. I didn’t know that until after I dropped off my ballot.
Click to expand...
Nobody on this thread has asked this question, so I’ll ask it: Why isn’t affordable childbirth, and the shameful infant mortality rate in the U.S. (that’s the death of infants AFTER they’re born, which is a de facto “partial birth abortion” without it actually being an abortion), part of the PRO-LIFE agenda in the U.S.?

Abortions cost $300-$400 a pop compared to upwards of – thousands more – to delivery a baby. What has Trump proposed to help LOWER the cost of childbirth and LOWER the cost of choosing life? I and others have asked on CAF about the obscenely expensive cost of the childbirth – shouldn’t PRO-LIFE policies encourage mothers to choose life, not discourage them with how expensive it has gotten?

The fact of the matter is abortions are declining. Case in point: National Right to Life’s numbers show a sharp decline in abortions:
nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf

I realize FACTS get in the way of the current PRO-LIFE narrative, but I simply don’t see any evidence that the abortion rate will increase and there will be a spike in killing babies if Hillary’s elected. If anything, as both the AP and Newsweek (among other sources) have pointed out, “Obamacare” has helped REDUCE the number of abortions:
newsweek.com/states-did-not-restrict-access-abortion-clinics-see-greatest-decrease-abortion-340844
 
randomuser said:
Nobody on this thread has asked this question, so I’ll ask it: Why isn’t affordable childbirth, and the shameful infant mortality rate in the U.S. (that’s the death of infants AFTER they’re born, which is a de facto “partial birth abortion” without it actually being an abortion), part of the PRO-LIFE agenda in the U.S.?

Abortions cost $300-$400 a pop compared to upwards of – thousands more – to delivery a baby. What has Trump proposed to help LOWER the cost of childbirth and LOWER the cost of choosing life? I and others have asked on CAF about the obscenely expensive cost of the childbirth – shouldn’t PRO-LIFE policies encourage mothers to choose life, not discourage them with how expensive it has gotten?

The fact of the matter is abortions are declining. Case in point: National Right to Life’s numbers show a sharp decline in abortions:
nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf

I realize FACTS get in the way of the current PRO-LIFE narrative, but I simply don’t see any evidence that the abortion rate will increase and there will be a spike in killing babies if Hillary’s elected. If anything, as both the AP and Newsweek (among other sources) have pointed out, “Obamacare” has helped REDUCE the number of abortions:
newsweek.com/states-did-not-restrict-access-abortion-clinics-see-greatest-decrease-abortion-340844
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I don’t have time to reply point by point. Someone else might. On Trump’s official page, he did say he was in favor of full-pay six weeks maternity leave.

As to the rest of your concerns, the people I saw most often concretely helping pregnant women, both pre and post-natally, have been pro-lifers. I can’t help it if they’re the main group I’ve been around. I know at least one college that has taken real measures to accompany women in their decision to choose life. We’re talking separate housing and child-care so they can attend classes.

In my state, our Catholic Charities pregnancy center has been expanding into true competition with PP in all things except abortion and contraception, and now includes post-natal health. It’s has recently networked with two other pregnancy clinics in the hopes of providing these same services. Adoption is certainly always an option too, and many times at zero cost to the birth-mother.

There’s more I could say, but I don’t have time. Democrats have shown they’re willing to force faith groups to provide contraceptives. They’ve shown they’re willing to shut down adoption agencies. They’ve shown they’re willing to force pregnancy centers, like in CA, to provide name and phone numbers of where women may obtain abortions. They’ve shown their hostility is strong enough to form pseudo-Catholic groups in order to change Church teaching and foment revolution.

Google Marisol Health Clinic or Lighthouse Women’s Center. Google initiatives to accompany pregnant women who choose life. It isn’t so much whether Republicans have these things enshrined in their platform, but whether Democrats are actively seeking to force compliance or shut down.

I could summarize what I just said by saying the writing is on the wall.
 
TCEL said:
I’m sorry I don’t have time to reply point by point. Someone else might. On Trump’s official page, he did say he was in favor of full-pay six weeks maternity leave.

As to the rest of your concerns, the people I saw most often concretely helping pregnant women, both pre and post-natally, have been pro-lifers. I can’t help it if they’re the main group I’ve been around. I know at least one college that has taken real measures to accompany women in their decision to choose life. We’re talking separate housing and child-care so they can attend classes.

In my state, our Catholic Charities pregnancy center has been expanding into true competition with PP in all things except abortion and contraception, and now includes post-natal health. It’s has recently networked with two other pregnancy clinics in the hopes of providing these same services. Adoption is certainly always an option too, and many times at zero cost to the birth-mother.

There’s more I could say, but I don’t have time. Democrats have shown they’re willing to force faith groups to provide contraceptives. They’ve shown they’re willing to shut down adoption agencies. They’ve shown they’re willing to force pregnancy centers, like in CA, to provide name and phone numbers of where women may obtain abortions. They’ve shown their hostility is strong enough to form pseudo-Catholic groups in order to change Church teaching and foment revolution.

Google Marisol Health Clinic or Lighthouse Women’s Center. Google initiatives to accompany pregnant women who choose life. It isn’t so much whether Republicans have these things enshrined in their platform, but whether Democrats are actively seeking to force compliance or shut down.

I could summarize what I just said by saying the writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...
Six weeks? Seriously? I had to Google this to be sure it’s not a joke and Trump is really proposing that. If true, as Fortune (and others have pointed out), that places the U.S. from “dead last to….tied for last place with Portugal and Australia. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, meanwhile, doesn’t fare much better against America’s peers; it would move the U.S. to tied for third-worst alongside Mexico.”
Source: fortune.com/2016/09/14/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-maternity-leave/

Hillary’s 12-week maternity-leave proposal is more PRO-FAMILY than Trump’s tiddly-wink 6-week proposal.

I have seen nothing from Trump about the obscenely expensive cost of delivery. Nothing. Shouldn’t a PRO-LIFE president be supporting the necessary healthcare reform that makes childbirth more accessible than abortion?
 
TCEL said:
I was just informed that voting Trump in CO may very well benefit the third party candidate I almost voted for (McMullin). Politics are complicated. But, it was a nice bonus. I voted Trump because I woke up yesterday morning wondering if partial-birth abortions would increase. I live in a state where they are already legal. We had a woman once who wanted to use our free ultrasound services, but was looking into late-term abortion. Nope. Can’t live with the thought that I’d vote in such a way to increase that. Or with the thought that I’d put a party into power who is hostile to anything but state-funded education. I’d been seriously waffling back and forth. It was a balm to hear that my vote for Trump would benefit the guy I actually prefer. I didn’t know that until after I dropped off my ballot.
Click to expand...
Considering abortion rates have been declining for years, I simply don’t see any evidence that any types of abortions will increase.

OTOH, the obscenely expensive costs of childbirth and delivery have been increasing for years – so much so that abortions average $300 a pop compared to thousands more than that for delivery (excluding prenatal care costs) and I never see this disparity being addressed as part of the pro-life cause.
 
Wasn’t the AHA supposed to give affordable and accessible maternity coverage?
 
randomuser said:
Six weeks? Seriously? I had to Google this to be sure it’s not a joke and Trump is really proposing that. If true, as Fortune (and others have pointed out), that places the U.S. from "dead last to…]****.tied for last place with Portugal and Australia
Click to expand...
. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, meanwhile, doesn’t fare much better against America’s peers; it would move the U.S. to tied for third-worst alongside Mexico."
Source: fortune.com/2016/09/14/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-maternity-leave/

Hillary’s 12-week maternity-leave proposal is more PRO-FAMILY than Trump’s tiddly-wink 6-week proposal.

I have seen nothing from Trump about the obscenely expensive cost of delivery. Nothing. Shouldn’t a PRO-LIFE president be supporting the necessary healthcare reform that makes childbirth more accessible than abortion?

Australia has 18 weeks paid maternity leave…at the same rate as the minimum weekly wage which is $622.10…
maternityleaveaustralia.com.au/parental_leave_payment_amounts_3.html
 
Peter_Plato said:
Sounds like what the experts were saying about the British pound before the Brexit vote.

The American dollar is being propped up by those with huge stakes. Very likely the reason the market crashes occurred under Republican administrations is because those were far less likely to enact policies which artificially supported the markets – similar to what is happening today.

You may want to watch this…

youtu.be/ZnG6Sz_B4ds

Start at about 15:26 and again at 22:00 for the parts related to your post.
Click to expand...
Saw the video.

One thing I noticed during the debate was that she didn’t know the difference between debt and deficits either.

A certain amount of debt is needed for a growing company or a growing economy. Companies require capital of some kind to move forward. Deficits occur when your revenues don’t cover your expenses.

BTW. The British exit has not occurred yet so the jury is still out whether it was a good thing or not.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Yeah,the ACA,according to Obama was going to be the panacea,that would cure all of our healthcare woes!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It’s not “pro-life” to deny care for handicapped or autistic kids or cut them off because of pre-existing conditions, so in that respect, it did. ( :rolleyes: optional)
 
randomuser said:
It’s not “pro-life” to deny care for handicapped or autistic kids or cut them off because of pre-existing conditions, so in that respect, it did. ( :rolleyes: optional)
Click to expand...
But its ok to lie to the people that you can keep your doctor and your health plan and that this will lower premiums and deductibles.
 
DeniseNY said:
Wasn’t the AHA supposed to give affordable and accessible maternity coverage?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t there outrage that it was hard to find a plan that did not include paying for abortion? Or something weird like men getting maternity coverage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top