Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. 2018...

[Hawkeye]

You're an adult (I assume), you can navigate a forum if you want to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mmpsteve]

Holy Cow, did this thread take a wrong turn. My point was, and is: there's more important issues in this election (tho one could argue that unborn life is the most important). I said that the right to abortion is not under attack. I said that LGBT rights are not under attack. I stand by those statements. I was a little rude, and I do apologize to the gentle lady; but ... I was called out for being rude, and then you went on to say the highlighted parts in red. Very subtle message, sir. I'm guessing that made the gentle lady feel much better about her issues in this election. As to wasting your vote on 3rd parties, I'll stand by my statements on that also. See you all on Nov. 7th, and I hope it's not me crying on that day.



"As for abortion, I think most of the good intentions people have that support the barbaric practice first start with the assumption that a child can be a punishment or a bad thing.

It seems unlikely to me that any coherent moral philosophy can simultaneously hold that torturing an animal is unacceptable but killing a baby is. People like to pretend it's "part of the woman's body" but clearly that cannot be true as the woman had a complete body when she was born. It cannot be a part of her body if it is added later and stays only temporarily. It is a custodial relationship of a baby with distinct DNA and fingerprints. It is a separate human in a developmental state. These are facts whether the law recognizes them as such or not.

If you don't want to have kids, you are very fortunate that there's a 100% foolproof way to avoid such. Have you heard of celibacy?

Sex isn't a right, it is a privilege, one that comes with responsibility and occasionally that responsibility shows up in the flesh in the form of a baby. "

"All due respect" is not a magic phrase that makes a rude statement respectful, sir.

What issues are important to SarahG or any others are for them to decide, not for you to decide on her behalf or theirs.

You're free to try to convince her that her prioritization should more closely align with yours, but this kind of post is unlikely to move her in your direction.

 

[HoughMade]

Thank you for engaging.

To your highlighted point: who gets to define "threat" (also, "risk"), and who gets to set the threshold of acceptability for either? Shouldn't it be the person taking that risk? CAN it be any other person?

In other words...it is a fact that pregnancy kills women every day. There is a measurable amount of death caused by pregnancy, delivery, or the complications thereof. How is it anyone else's place to decide what level of risk is acceptable for the perceived reward? Only that person, herself, can make that decision...at least in my mind.

If we are going to use a self-defense analysis, we have to admit that the person who "feels threatened" is not justified to take life based on a subjective belief alone. There is an objective or "reasonableness" standard. In other words, is it reasonable to believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Are we treating this situation differently?

Beyond this, the baby is a complete innocent. It did not decide to take actions that threatened, or potentially threatened anyone. I believe that the rights of the baby are important and cannot be brushed aside simply on the basis that the mother is profoundly affected. Death affects the baby rather permanently.

Sure, women die in childbirth, but relevant to us, we are in the U.S. in 2018. How common is that? More importantly, how common is it for that to happen when there are not medical conditions that are known to exist and raise the danger? It matters. We don't get to kill people in self defense based upon what neighborhood we are in or what city we are in without a real, present, objectively verifiable threat. If the self-defense model is being used, why would that justify killing when there is not real, present, objectively verifiable threat, but merely the possibility of one?

If another person's life were not involved, I would agree it is 100% the woman's call. However, I believe another life is involved and as the one with no responsibility, in any scenario, of causing the issue to arise, should not be ignored. A lot of crappy parents don't like feeding, clothing and otherwise being inconvenienced by their children, but the law has no issue holding them liable when they do not.

 

[JettaKnight]

Thank you for engaging.

To your highlighted point: who gets to define "threat" (also, "risk"), and who gets to set the threshold of acceptability for either? Shouldn't it be the person taking that risk? CAN it be any other person?

In other words...it is a fact that pregnancy kills women every day. There is a measurable amount of death caused by pregnancy, delivery, or the complications thereof. How is it anyone else's place to decide what level of risk is acceptable for the perceived reward? Only that person, herself, can make that decision...at least in my mind.

If we're defining pregnancy as "a threat", doesn't that open a whole can of worms, like can we prosecute an infant? What about the father? I mean he did a part in this, conceivably he put the mother at risk.

I'm just not big on the idea of classifying Mary's pregnancy as joyous, miraculous event because she wants to pregnant, but Peggy's pregnancy is life-threatening crisis because a child would impact her career and/or bar hopping.

Furthermore, I really don't hear that argument in use - even here, SarahG's argument was, "I do not want children", not, "it's dangerous to give birth."

 

[indiucky]

You're an adult (I assume), you can navigate a forum if you want to.

Not when he is on his tractor....He's downright giddy as a 12 year old then...As he should be....

 

[Breynolds38]

Not so much, post history seems to go back a whole 2 hours at this post. Register and lose your keyboard?

Weird, I can still see the posts I made in 2013. Maybe you're just bad at this?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I think a bigger problem is when you hear leftist, you think Hillary Clinton, who is so far right to me she might as well be Trump's vice president.

You do know that this is a pro 2A site ......right?

 

[T.Lex]

[This is me doing a drive by music video drop then going back to the immigration stuff. Where it isn't as intense. For a change.]

Alpo as well...Tlex makes me think.....

[video=youtube;wv-34w8kGPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM[/video]

I *think* that's SFW nowadays....

 

[Breynolds38]

You do know that this is a pro 2A site ......right?

Are you somehow under the impression that only far right conservative republicans own guns? Like, it's perfectly excusable to assume most democrats either don't or are quislings about it with regard to their party's stated stance on firearms, but do you REALLY think that there is nobody else in the room?

 

[bwframe]

All this argument over murdering babies and Donnelly sides with the Pres on those that come here just to procreate a new US citizen...

Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly Open To Changing Birthright Citizenship

 

[Thor]

Just heard Rush talking about Joe's 'but' moment.

 

[Thor]

Weird, I can still see the posts I made in 2013. Maybe you're just bad at this?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm certainly not as abrasive as you are...which is saying a bit.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Are you somehow under the impression that only far right conservative republicans own guns? Like, it's perfectly excusable to assume most democrats either don't or are quislings about it with regard to their party's stated stance on firearms, but do you REALLY think that there is nobody else in the room?

No,actually I work for a Blueblood Democrat who is a life member of the NRA.I just scratch my head enough after talking to him,I now have a bald spot.

 

[HoughMade]

All this argument over murdering babies and Donnelly sides with the Pres on those that come here just to procreate a new US citizen...

Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly Open To Changing Birthright Citizenship

Sometimes you have to run right to keep a leftist ally in office.

 

[Breynolds38]

All this argument over murdering babies and Donnelly sides with the Pres on those that come here just to procreate a new US citizen...

Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly Open To Changing Birthright Citizenship

Between Joe, Mike, and Lucy, whoever takes the election, the governor of Indiana is gonna be in the pocket of the republican party.

 

[HoughMade]

Between Joe, Mike, and Lucy, whoever takes the election, the governor of Indiana is gonna be in the pocket of the republican party.

Well, yes, because the Governor is a Republican.

This is the Senate​ race.

 

[mmpsteve]

This thread is getting a little heated, so I'll just leave this here to cool things down a little. Plus, it's getting close to Turkey Time, seeing as it's Wednesday. In my defense, Megan was recently discriminated against for saying something silly, and she's a woman, and possibly blond, and a mother, and feministical, and and and ....

 

[Breynolds38]

No,actually I work for a Blueblood Democrat who is a life member of the NRA.I just scratch my head enough after talking to him,I now have a bald spot.

Conservative democrats are basically just republicans wearing masks imo.

 

[Route 45]

Just heard Rush talking about Joe's 'but' moment.

Oh, Joe.

Is this his Murdock moment?

[video=youtube;XMDmcCOHa8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMDmcCOHa8Y[/video]

 

[Breynolds38]

Well, yes, because the Governor is a Republican.

This is the Senate​ race.

You see? It's not hard to point out a flaw in what someone said without attacking them personally. I knew you had it in you all along.