A Suggestion For The Republican Party

[TrakeM]

Abortion is an important issue to many republicans. The official party statement is no abortion period (even in case of rape). I think it would be reasonable, if you demand your candidate be against abortion in all cases period, they should have to call and tell a woman who is pregnant because of rape that they intend to force her to carry the baby to term and that they will do whatever they can to ensure no government assistance is available if they are against government assistance. Politicians should speak loudly and clearly about their policies.

If they want to ban abortion in case of danger to the mother, they should have to publicly tell a mother that they intend to ensure that she will die so that the baby can be born even if the baby will only live for a few hours. Oh, and then explain it all to any children she already has and then make a call to the husband if there is one. If this what you believe, you should be more than happy to make that call and look long and hard at what you're doing.

I think politicians should speak loudly and clearly about their policies. I think both parties need to insist that their leaders speak with the very people who they want to enforce laws on rather than just speaking from a podium where it's easier to ignore the humanity of what they want to do.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Democrats support After-Birth Abortion, which is actually infanticide. They claim there is no moral issue with killing a newborn since they don't consider an infant to be an actual person.

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
. . .
n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.​

 

[patrick jane]

Abortion is an important issue to many republicans. The official party statement is no abortion period (even in case of rape). I think it would be reasonable, if you demand your candidate be against abortion in all cases period, they should have to call and tell a woman who is pregnant because of rape that they intend to force her to carry the baby to term and that they will do whatever they can to ensure no government assistance is available if they are against government assistance. Politicians should speak loudly and clearly about their policies.

If they want to ban abortion in case of danger to the mother, they should have to publicly tell a mother that they intend to ensure that she will die so that the baby can be born even if the baby will only live for a few hours. Oh, and then explain it all to any children she already has and then make a call to the husband if there is one. If this what you believe, you should be more than happy to make that call and look long and hard at what you're doing.

I think politicians should speak loudly and clearly about their policies. I think both parties need to insist that their leaders speak with the very people who they want to enforce laws on rather than just speaking from a podium where it's easier to ignore the humanity of what they want to do.

in a perfect world. it turns out every 4 years that issues that are run on, still never get solved or even addressed once the election is over. same ol' same ol' -

 

[The Horn]

Genuineoriginal, the Democrats do NOT support infanticide . No one, or hardly anyone does .
The claim that Obama supports alowing infants born from botched abortions to be left to die and voted for this is just one of the countless blatant lies that have been spread about him by the right ever since he came to prominence .
Incidents of infants surviving such botched abortion sare so rare as be be pretty m8uch non-existent anyway .
The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in the first trimester before a fetus has a developed brain and a functioning nervous sytem .
There is no pain involved whatsoever .

 

[Ktoyou]

Horn , you are void to the point :loser:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Genuineoriginal, the Democrats do NOT support infanticide .

Sure they do.

Just read the quotes and follow the link to the source I used.

You will find out that the Democrats that support infanticide do so with healthy babies born by the normal methods.

No mention was made about botched abortions.

 

[Kdall]

Sure they do.

Just read the quotes and follow the link to the source I used.

You will find out that the Democrats that support infanticide do so with healthy babies born by the normal methods.

No mention was made about botched abortions.

Those quotes are from an article written by two people. It's not anything close to the party platform. Only those on the far far left, like Bernie Sanders-left, support that. And even then only some of those far lefties support it

 

[genuineoriginal]

Those quotes are from an article written by two people.

The quotes are from two Democrats.

It's not anything close to the party platform.

That means nothing.
The official Republican party platform is pro-life, but the actions of the Republican party show they are really pro-abortion.
So, it comes as no surprise if these two Democrats represent the true intentions of the Democrat party.

Only those on the far far left, like Bernie Sanders-left, support that. And even then only some of those far lefties support it

What makes you think there is any real difference between abortion and infanticide?
There are thousands of years of history that show infanticide was the de-facto method for doing what is now done by induced abortion.

 

[Kdall]

The quotes are from two Democrats.

Yes, but you're taking two people's opinions and making a blanket statement about an entire political party

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, but you're taking two people's opinions and making a blanket statement about an entire political party

Like the OP did?

(are you a moron?)

 

[Kdall]

Like the OP did?

(are you a moron?)

I never said the OP was correct. Most Republicans today are in favor of abortions in cases of incest and rape. But just because somebody else makes a blanket statement doesn't make it right for you to also do so

 

[genuineoriginal]

I never said the OP was correct. Most Republicans today are in favor of abortions in cases of incest and rape. But just because somebody else makes a blanket statement doesn't make it right for you to also do so

The OP specifically mentioned the Republican party.

I specifically mentioned the Democrats that made the statements I quoted.

I assume you went to public school and they taught you to read?

 

[genuineoriginal]

 

[Kdall]

The OP specifically mentioned the Republican party.

I specifically mentioned the Democrats that made the statements I quoted.

I assume you went to public school and they taught you to read?

Genuineoriginal, the Democrats do NOT support infanticide . No one, or hardly anyone does .

Sure they do.

While I appreciate you caring about my literacy enough to suggest a school for me to attend, it seems you need it far more than I

 

[Kdall]

The quotes are from two Democrats.


That means nothing.
The official Republican party platform is pro-life, but the actions of the Republican party show they are really pro-abortion.
So, it comes as no surprise if these two Democrats represent the true intentions of the Democrat party.


What makes you think there is any real difference between abortion and infanticide?
There are thousands of years of history that show infanticide was the de-facto method for doing what is now done by induced abortion.

The difference is that there is debate on when the living thing inside of that woman becomes a human baby and ceases being a fetus. If it's not an infant, it can't be infanticide

 

[genuineoriginal]

While I appreciate you caring about my literacy enough to suggest a school for me to attend, it seems you need it far more than I

Are you assuming that "The Democrats" that Horn mentioned are not the "Democrats" I mentioned?

Why would you think Horn would do something so deceptive as to talk about a different group of people than I was talking about when responding to my post?

Come to think of it, why would you do the same thing Horn did?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The difference is that there is debate on when the living thing inside of that woman becomes a human baby and ceases being a fetus. If it's not an infant, it can't be infanticide

According to the Democrats, the "infant" is not really a person.

Here is what they said about it:

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all​

 

[Kdall]

Are you assuming that "The Democrats" that Horn mentioned are not the "Democrats" I mentioned?

Why would you think Horn would do something so deceptive as to talk about a different group of people than I was talking about when responding to my post?

Come to think of it, why would you do the same thing Horn did?

You answered Horn without specifying what you now claim to be your true intentions, then when I first commented on it you answered me by defending your 'blanket statement', as I very clearly put it, by saying that the OP also made a blanket statement. If you did not mean 'Democrats' in a generalized way, why did you point the finger at the OP's blanket statement as an excuse for you to also generalize? Perhaps you did truly mean only those two democrats, but you in no way made that clear if that is the case. It also begs the question of why it upset you so much if you honestly thought only two democrats supported it

 

[Kdall]

According to the Democrats, the "infant" is not really a person.

Here is what they said about it:

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all​

I don't like abortion any more than you do. But the fact is that I, and the scientific community, don't really know for certain when a fetus turns into a baby. It might be conception, and it might be when they're born. We just don't know yet. Because of that, I can't really fault the Democratic Party statement above. I disagree with it but that's just my opinion and nothing more.

Regardless of the fetus' humanity, it is still a living thing. I find it ironic that the same people who obsess over animal rights, like PETA, are the same people who strongly support abortion. Even if it isn't human, it's alive. If you are appalled by a dog being shot by its owner, it would be consistent for you to also be appalled by a fetus being killed

 

[genuineoriginal]

You answered Horn without specifying what you now claim to be your true intentions

Your misunderstanding comes from your lack of ability to comprehend what you read.
It is really that simple.

, then when I first commented on it you answered me by defending your 'blanket statement', as I very clearly put it, by saying that the OP also made a blanket statement.

No, I asked a question to see whether you were commenting on the blanket statement made in the OP.
Your answer to my question showed that you were assuming that I was making a blanket statement.
Again, your misunderstanding comes from your lack of ability to comprehend what you read.
It is really that simple.

If you did not mean 'Democrats' in a generalized way, why did you point the finger at the OP's blanket statement as an excuse for you to also generalize?

I didn't.
Your misunderstanding comes from your lack of ability to comprehend what you read.
It is really that simple.

Perhaps you did truly mean only those two democrats, but you in no way made that clear if that is the case.

I was very clear.
I even provided the quotes from the Democrats.
How much clearer did you want me to make it?

Your misunderstanding comes from your lack of ability to comprehend what you read.
It is really that simple.

It also begs the question of why it upset you so much if you honestly thought only two democrats supported it

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

You could go back and read what I actually wrote and compare that to what you merely thought I wrote.