Trump to Attend Event With Group That Believes Abortion Is “Child Sacrifice” and Must Be “Eradicated Entirely”

[robosmith]

Trump to Attend Event With Group That Believes Abortion Is “Child Sacrifice” and Must Be “Eradicated Entirely”

Quote

Donald Trump has spent much of his 2024 campaign pretending to be a moderate on abortion, a stance no one should believe given that:

He regularly brags about killing Roe v. Wade

He has said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who obtain abortions

He has said states can punish doctors who provide abortions

He has said he wouldn’t stop states from tracking individual pregnancies so they can prosecute people caught getting abortions

Oh, and next week he’s speaking to a group that calls abortion “child sacrifice” and whose mission is to “eradicate” the medical procedure entirely.

That group is the Danbury Institute, which declares on its website: “We believe that the greatest atrocity facing our generation today is the practice of abortion—child sacrifice on the altar of self...Abortion must be ended. We will not rest until it is eradicated entirely...We are grateful to God and to the current slate of Supreme Court Justices for the successful overturning of Roe v. Wade. However, the battle is far from won.” (Not surprisingly, the group also notes that it is against “LGBTQ+ indoctrination of children,” “Gender confusion,” “Transgender ideology,” “Critical Race Theory and Marxist ideologies,” and ”Socialism.”)

And some WERE saying that Trump has moderated his stance for the election. LMAO

[gatomontes99]

Good

[User]

As opposed to folks on the left who reduce the unborn human babies to nothing more than clumps of cells and don't care about 1,000,000 killed every year, mainly for the mere convenience of it?

 

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, User said:

As opposed to folks on the left who reduce the unborn human babies to nothing more than clumps of cells and don't care about 1,000,000 killed every year, mainly for the mere convenience of it?

 

No, we simply think it is the woman’s decision, not yours. 

[User]

Just now, Rebound said:

No, we simply think it is the woman’s decision, not yours. 

To kill a human baby?

So, like I said, you are just fine with 1 Million dead babies a year for the mere convenience of it. 

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, User said:

To kill a human baby?

So, like I said, you are just fine with 1 Million dead babies a year for the mere convenience of it. 

Killing babies is ILLEGAL. IF you know anyone who is doing that, call the FBI and REPORT IT.

Terminating a pregnancy is not illegal everywhere, yet.

But I take it you'll be voting to deny a woman's RIGHTS to make her own healthcare decisions by electing Trump. 🤮

[impartialobserver]

Trump can pontificate but a nationwide ban is not going to happen. 

[robosmith]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

Trump can pontificate but a nationwide ban is not going to happen. 

Ever heard of the Comstock Act? It's already on the books.

It was irrelevant after RvW, but now it's OPEN SEASON.

[User]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Killing babies is ILLEGAL. IF you know anyone who is doing that, call the FBI and REPORT IT.

Oh, so when Hitler was killing Jews, that was all fine and dandy... because there was no explicit laws stopping him. Slavery was cool too, all perfectly legal!

This is not a real argument, it is just you saying it is cool to kill these babies because it is legal. 

So, you fully abide by the law in the states where there are far more restrictions then, making it illegal?

Killing babies is not a mere "healthcare decision"

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, User said:

Oh, so when Hitler was killing Jews, that was all fine and dandy... because there was no explicit laws stopping him. Slavery was cool too, all perfectly legal!

This is not a real argument, it is just you saying it is cool to kill these babies because it is legal. 

So, you fully abide by the law in the states where there are far more restrictions then, making it illegal?

Killing babies is not a mere "healthcare decision"

You're not making any sense, just babbling....

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're not making any sense, just babbling....

And you are cowardly ignoring my comments and question.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, we simply think it is the woman’s decision, not yours. 

The issue as we have discussed is whether or not the thing inside her is a human being. If it is, then it is not her decision to make. Mothers don't get the right to decide to kill children (despite many mother's threats to their kids later on  ) 

Murder is wrong and no, it's not okay to have someone make a decision about committing murder. Murder is murder

Now it's the thing is not a human being then this should be an irrelevant issue. It's no different than having a cancer removed or a wart.

But the issue comes down to whether or not it is a human being and a person with the appropriate human rights attached. Some believe and argue it is, some believe in argue it isn't. The groups who  Argue that it is have every right to be heard.

So presenting the idea that listening to the people is a bad thing and that some people don't deserve representation is kind of disgusting. It certainly speaks to the Democrat mindset right now

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, User said:

Oh, so when Hitler was killing Jews, that was all fine and dandy... because there was no explicit laws stopping him. Slavery was cool too, all perfectly legal!

This is not a real argument, it is just you saying it is cool to kill these babies because it is legal. 

So, you fully abide by the law in the states where there are far more restrictions then, making it illegal?

Killing babies is not a mere "healthcare decision"

Abortion is not "killing babies." If you want to discuss it like an adult you can use the proper terminology. 

And regardless of what you call it, the pregnant person should not be enslaved by the government and deprived of her blood, tissue, autonomy and health in service to the government or to the fetus.

If the pregnant person chooses to give, that's fine, but it's absolutely wrong to force them. As wrong as the government cornering you in a dark alley to drain your blood against your will.

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Abortion is not "killing babies." If you want to discuss it like an adult you can use the proper terminology. 

I have discussed this with you before, and you have proven to be anything other than an adult. Unless you have forgotten your belief in the magic birth canal?

When you are in a Starbucks and overhear a pregnant woman talking about her baby growing inside her, do you interrupt her to say: "Hey, that is not a baby inside you. Grow up and use proper terminology!"

I am not even sure you have every been around a pregnant mother, well, at least one that plans to keep her baby and wants it. They don't think their unborn child growing inside of them is just some mere lump of cells nor do they call it their fetus. 

Give me a break. It is you and the other baby killers who want to change the language to make yourselves feel better about what it is you are doing. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

And regardless of what you call it, the pregnant person should not be enslaved by the government and deprived of her blood, tissue, autonomy and health in service to the government or to the fetus.

The pregnant... woman. Women get pregnant. Don't tell me you are so crazy with the gender ideology nonsense you think men can be pregnant now too? 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

If the pregnant person chooses to give, that's fine, but it's absolutely wrong to force them. As wrong as the government cornering you in a dark alley to drain your blood against your will.

Ah, I see. So you are opposed to child support now? Or any other government law forcing parents to have to care for their children? 

 

[herbie]

Texas Court Rules Pregnant 9 Year Old Must Bring Alien To Term

If she was impregnated by an alien, that is God’s Will and a pre-born baby is a life, says Supreme Court Judge Luther P. Butticks R.

Parents entered the bedroom of their daughter Louly Smithson to discover an alien face-hugger wrapped about her and doctors confirmed she was impregnated and in less than two weeks she will explode as an a pre metamorphic baby alien bursts from her chest.
Visiting scientists from the future claim the alien could be removed from the 9 year old’s body using their experimental transporter beam, but were prevented from doing so by a court injunction filed by the Church of Infinite Misery in her home town. (cont’d on Pg 37)

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Abortion is not "killing babies." If you want to discuss it like an adult you can use the proper terminology. 

It is if the fetus is a human. That's undisputable.

So you can try and make an argument that the fetus is not a human and that's fine. Or you can make an argument that the fetus is a human and that's fine. But he used the correct terminology if you Take the position that the fetus is a human.

That is the problem with you closed-minded people, simple and honest words offend you because they conflict with the dystopia that you surround yourself with. Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a human you cannot say what you said as a fact

[Hodad]

11 hours ago, User said:

I have discussed this with you before, and you have proven to be anything other than an adult. Unless you have forgotten your belief in the magic birth canal?When you are in a Starbucks and overhear a pregnant woman talking about her baby growing inside her, do you interrupt her to say: "Hey, that is not a baby inside you. Grow up and use proper terminology!"
 

 

That's one of the differences between us. Unlike you, I don't have any compulsion to tell strangers how to feel about their pregnancies or what to do with their bodies. How they feel about the fetus is their business.

Quote

The pregnant... woman. Women get pregnant. Don't tell me you are so crazy with the gender ideology nonsense you think men can be pregnant now too? 

 

Again, it's really none of my business whether a pregnant person identifies as any particular gender--or any gender at all. What is it with your obsessive need to control other people? Just let them be.

Quote

Ah, I see. So you are opposed to child support now? Or any other government law forcing parents to have to care for their children? 

^^Well, this is just silly. You're trying to make an analogy where there is none to be made. The only people who are obligated to pay child support are parents. Terminating parental rights ends the obligation. Terminating a pregnancy precludes any obligation.

All of which is different than literally enslaving women and forcing them to give of their bodies in service of anything--particularly in service to a non-entity.

That's what you should find morally repugnant. 

[User]

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's one of the differences between us. Unlike you, I don't have any compulsion to tell strangers how to feel about their pregnancies or what to do with their bodies. How they feel about the fetus is their business.

The only difference between us is the stupid depravity of your view of the unborn child and that you are not honest enough to accept the Pro-Life position. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be honest enough to accept what it is instead of pushing these stupid responses. 

If you did, then you would know that whatever compulsion I have or other Pro-Life people have to tell strangers how to feel about killing their unborn children is no different than if they were killing their 5 year olds. 

I presume you want to tell people how to feel about that, right? That it should be wrong to kill 5 year olds?

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Again, it's really none of my business whether a pregnant person identifies as any particular gender--or any gender at all. What is it with your obsessive need to control other people? Just let them be.

Truth is universal. Pointing it out is not controlling other people. 

You have always struggled to grasp the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate that a woman wants to call herself a man and pretend to be one, but that doesn't actually make her one, and I don't have to pretend/accept that lie as true. 

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

^^Well, this is just silly. You're trying to make an analogy where there is none to be made. The only people who are obligated to pay child support are parents. Terminating parental rights ends the obligation. Terminating a pregnancy precludes any obligation.

All of which is different than literally enslaving women and forcing them to give of their bodies in service of anything--particularly in service to a non-entity.

That's what you should find morally repugnant. 

Nothing silly about it and you avoided the question. A parent can't simply get out of child support. There are robust laws in place to compel parents to continue to have to care for children they do not want nor want to be a part of their lives. 

So... do you want to use government force to compel folks to do this?

Do you want to enslave fathers to have to care for children they don't want?

[impartialobserver]

57 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's one of the differences between us. Unlike you, I don't have any compulsion to tell strangers how to feel about their pregnancies or what to do with their bodies. How they feel about the fetus is their business.

No matter how crazy or not crazy someone is... much like you, I do not interrupt and start telling them how they should feel about a topic. Last summer, took my kids to Yerington, NV and some guy was going on about Bigfoot. I just kept walking by even though I wanted to tell him that there is zero evidence of this creature. 

[robosmith]

49 minutes ago, User said:

The only difference between us is the stupid depravity of your view of the unborn child and that you are not honest enough to accept the Pro-Life position. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be honest enough to accept what it is instead of pushing these stupid responses. 

If you did, then you would know that whatever compulsion I have or other Pro-Life people have to tell strangers how to feel about killing their unborn children is no different than if they were killing their 5 year olds. 

Thanks for revealing the STUPIDITY of your misunderstanding.

The difference HAS ALWAYS been recognized by society, you are just too dumb to even acknowledge that FACT.

"viability" Look it  up.

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for revealing the STUPIDITY of your misunderstanding.

The difference HAS ALWAYS been recognized by society, you are just too dumb to even acknowledge that FACT.

"viability" Look it  up.

You have offered nothing here to explain why I have any misunderstandings. 

Viability is your big response? 

So, you are just fine with controlling women, forcing them to be pregnant, and banning all abortions after viability?

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

The only difference between us is the stupid depravity of your view of the unborn child and that you are not honest enough to accept the Pro-Life position. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be honest enough to accept what it is instead of pushing these stupid responses. 

If you did, then you would know that whatever compulsion I have or other Pro-Life people have to tell strangers how to feel about killing their unborn children is no different than if they were killing their 5 year olds. 

I presume you want to tell people how to feel about that, right? That it should be wrong to kill 5 year olds?

Children are independent entities. A fetus is not, in any circumstance, but it's rather more obvious earlier in gestation. Terminating a pregnancy is very obviously different from killing a child. That you would claim the two situations are "no different" shows a shocking lack of thought. 

Meaningful differences include:

• Children do not compromise the physical sovereignty of the parent
• Children, as a category, do not take blood and tissue from a host
• Children can be cared for by any and several caregivers
• Children can be surrendered to other individuals or civic entities

This is not a comprehensive list, but sufficient to demonstrate meaningful differences. In short, if you don't want your kids, you have options. If you don't want to be pregnant, the only option is to terminate the pregnancy.

Quote

 

Truth is universal. Pointing it out is not controlling other people. 

You have always struggled to grasp the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate that a woman wants to call herself a man and pretend to be one, but that doesn't actually make her one, and I don't have to pretend/accept that lie as true. 

You can't even articulate the distinction between sex and gender, so you really aren't in any position to be the arbiter of "truth" regarding someone's gender. 

I don't think it's beyond your capacity to learn and understand that distinction, but that's not compatible with your politics, so you've refused. 

Quote

Nothing silly about it and you avoided the question. A parent can't simply get out of child support. There are robust laws in place to compel parents to continue to have to care for children they do not want nor want to be a part of their lives. 

So... do you want to use government force to compel folks to do this?

Do you want to enslave fathers to have to care for children they don't want?

Oh, it's absolutely a silly analogy. A parent CAN get out of child support by terminating parental rights. The legal procedures to do so vary by jurisdiction, but even at a broad level, all 50 states allow for infant surrender under safe haven laws. A parent can simply stop making money. And, conversely, a parent who wishes to keep a child can get help from other sources to care for it. 

Again, if you can't spot the difference between children and fetuses, refer to the list above. But it all comes back to the fact that children are an independent entity and even those which need help to survive can accept assistance from any other entity. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

No matter how crazy or not crazy someone is... much like you, I do not interrupt and start telling them how they should feel about a topic. Last summer, took my kids to Yerington, NV and some guy was going on about Bigfoot. I just kept walking by even though I wanted to tell him that there is zero evidence of this creature. 

Exactly. My concern with whatever weird stuff strangers believe is zero--until it starts hurting other people. After there is a question of harm it becomes a negotiation. 

 

[User]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Children are independent entities. A fetus is not, in any circumstance, but it's rather more obvious earlier in gestation. Terminating a pregnancy is very obviously different from killing a child. That you would claim the two situations are "no different" shows a shocking lack of thought. 

You really have an issue with reading comprehension. 

I did not say the two situations are "no different." I said any compulsion I or other Pro-Life folks have between the two situations is no different. 

There is some shocking lack of thought going on here, but it is not from me. 

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You can't even articulate the distinction between sex and gender, so you really aren't in any position to be the arbiter of "truth" regarding someone's gender. 

I don't think it's beyond your capacity to learn and understand that distinction, but that's not compatible with your politics, so you've refused. 

Where was I asked to articulate the difference here or in other discussions, where was that a part of the discussion?

There is no difference between sex and gender other than what you and others have invented in the last 5 minutes of human civilization. Doesn't mean I can't articulate it, it means I don't agree with it. Yet again, this concept of understanding and disagreement escapes you. Unlike you, I have the capacity to understand and accept what the views of others are, and disagree. 

The real problem here is that it is you who will play this game trying to say a woman can say she is a man and then a man can get pregnant... but never offer and meaningful definition of what a man or woman is then.

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Oh, it's absolutely a silly analogy. A parent CAN get out of child support by terminating parental rights.

What?!

OMG, you will go to any length to just make up crap. What state allows this? I am not aware of any that do like this. 

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

A parent can simply stop making money.

LOL... you are not a serious person. 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

No matter how crazy or not crazy someone is... much like you, I do not interrupt and start telling them how they should feel about a topic. Last summer, took my kids to Yerington, NV and some guy was going on about Bigfoot. I just kept walking by even though I wanted to tell him that there is zero evidence of this creature. 

So, you think they are crazy, you know they are wrong... its just that you don't want to tell them. 

That isn't what Hodad is doing here. He really thinks a woman can say she is a man and then a man can be pregnant... as he is using the term "pregnant person" and defending them. 

Hodad is the guy who believes in Bigfoot. You just don't want to say he is wrong. 

Except... you are on a public forum and do in fact engage in discussions here telling people, including me, they are wrong.