Hey L. Dot Trumpers He is Coming for YOU (and the rest of us)

[SevMax2]

Some do, yes.

You're just taking one perspective and then asserting all conservatives hold it.

Completely irrelevant to what I said.

My parents absolutely do. So does my sister. So does my brother, come to think of it. I think that life begins at conception myself, but I don't believe that sentient life or personhood does.

 

[coati]

Control freaks don't waste their time seeking power where there is none. Most of the federal power is in the executive branch bureaucracy. Another thick slice is in the media misinformation minders nominally employed in media. And there are various other organizations devoted to jumping on anything they find offensive so they can get people fired or deplatformed. The MAGA crowd seems more interested in liberty and survival, which they see threatened by the control freaks of our government and client organizations. That may end in secession or something similar, a mass going their own way and leaving the rest of the nation to spiral down the drain.

Yes, but I already realized that you bought into MAGAt mythology.

Most women, non-evangelicals, and minority groups disagree with your assessment of MAGAts as the facilitators of freedom. Trump is an absolute control freak, and so are most of his most rabid followers.

 

[TastySuckToy]

My parents absolutely do. So does my sister. So does my brother, come to think of it. I think that life begins at conception myself, but I don't believe that sentient life or personhood does.

This is where I assert both sides are a bit ignorant and/or disingenuous when it comes to terminology. There's the terms life, human, and human being, whereas I gather you and I agree that the human being/sentient/personhood label is the important one.

Sperm and eggs are both alive and human even before conception, so simply throwing out terms like life and human without qualifiers is pointless and confusing.

When a human being is in question, that's where the argument really becomes valid in my opinion. You have pro lifers saying life begins at conception (to which I reply human life was already there even before so), and pro choicers saying it's not human or alive by some arbitrary metric, which is also ridiculous.

But it's the human being/sentient/personhood criteria that needs to be agreed upon before any real and productive conversation can begin.

 

[SevMax2]

This is where I assert both sides are a bit ignorant and/or disingenuous when it comes to terminology. There's the terms life, human, and human being, whereas I gather you and I agree that the human being/sentient/personhood label is the important one.

Sperm and eggs are both alive and human even before conception, so simply throwing out terms like life and human without qualifiers is pointless and confusing.

When a human being is in question, that's where the argument really becomes valid in my opinion. You have pro lifers saying life begins at conception (to which I reply human life was already there even before so), and pro choicers saying it's not human or alive by some arbitrary metric, which is also ridiculous.

But it's the human being/sentient/personhood criteria that needs to be agreed upon before any real and productive conversation can begin.

Precisely the point and where I disagree with my parents. I do wish that the pro-choice camp would go back to the "safe, legal, and rare" concept instead of promoting abortion itself per se, but that isn't going to make me suddenly abandon supporting reproductive rights.

 

[Lazaran]

The only thing worse than a sea lion, is two (or more) sea lions.

 

[ll74]

Precisely the point and where I disagree with my parents. I do wish that the pro-choice camp would go back to the "safe, legal, and rare" concept instead of promoting abortion itself per se, but that isn't going to make me suddenly abandon supporting reproductive rights.

Abortions are safe, legal and rare.

Promoting their legality is the above.

The right has distorted the perception of abortions to the point of absurdity. Trump even mentioned "post birth abortions" on the campaign trail.

The left hasn't changed anything but instead have been forced to advocate for access for all women, as the right has successfully moved to restrict that access....to the point where many states have little to no abortion access while doctors in many states are afraid of legal action for providing a abortions.

 

[SevMax2]

Abortions are safe, legal and rare.

Promoting their legality is the above.

The right has distorted the perception of abortions to the point of absurdity. Trump even mentioned "post birth abortions" on the campaign trail.

The left hasn't changed anything but instead have been forced to advocate for access for all women, as the right has successfully moved to restrict that access....to the point where many states have little to no abortion access while doctors in many states are afraid of legal action for providing a abortions.

I dunno, I recall a trend of celebrating abortions not that long ago. I view them as a necessary evil and a tragedy, and even when necessary, hardly an optimal outcome. No cause for celebration. That being said, I very much disagree with my family on that particular issue. I am pro-choice. They are not.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You can read about Project 2025 from any number of sources. They aren’t hiding it. The Heritage Foundation would rather destroy democracy than tolerate living in America where the predominant faith is not conservative evangelical Christianity. Their desire to rid America of porn comes from their own documents. They got Vance on the ticket and they have Trump’s ear. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass because if Trump wins L.com is not long for this world and many of us writers will be fined or jailed. Don’t believe it can’t happen!

It would not surprise me liberals on this board consider this a matter of great concern. lol. Please share the link that cites Trump’s statement on banning porn and the link that validates your assertion that Trump has endorsed Project 2025 in its entirety.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Precisely the point and where I disagree with my parents. I do wish that the pro-choice camp would go back to the "safe, legal, and rare" concept instead of promoting abortion itself per se, but that isn't going to make me suddenly abandon supporting reproductive rights.

My position is that terminating any pregnancy at any point is permissible. And that's based upon the universal principle that no human being has the right to another person's body to keep themselves alive, regardless of circumstances.

And that principle applies regardless of at what point we may agree upon a human being existing. Which for me the argument can start at about 25 weeks, when the brain is present and begins to exhibit brain activity.

And with that said, the reason I say terminating the pregnancy rather than abortion, is because if the fetus can survive without the mother's body, every effort should be made to save it.

That way the women's bodily autonomy is completely respected (end the pregnancy at any time), and the life of the fetus is also respected (take every measure to save its life as well).

 

[Rebel5soul]

Abortions are safe, legal and rare.

Promoting their legality is the above.

The right has distorted the perception of abortions to the point of absurdity. Trump even mentioned "post birth abortions" on the campaign trail.

The left hasn't changed anything but instead have been forced to advocate for access for all women, as the right has successfully moved to restrict that access....to the point where many states have little to no abortion access while doctors in many states are afraid of legal action for providing a abortions.

Abortions are the single leading cause of death in the black community. Now, I don't give a rats ass one way or another but when abortions are the leading cause of death within any ethnic community, that community has a problem.

 

[SevMax2]

My position is that terminating any pregnancy at any point is permissible. And that's based upon the universal principle that no human being has the right to another person's body to keep themselves alive, regardless of circumstances.

And that principle applies regardless of at what point we may agree upon a human being existing. Which for me the argument can start at about 25 weeks, when the brain is present and begins to exhibit brain activity.

And with that said, the reason I say terminating the pregmancy rather than abortion is because if the fetus can survive without the mother's body, every effort should be made to save it.

That way the women's bodily autonomy is completely respected (end the pregnancy at any time), and the life of the fetus is also respected (take every measure to save its life as well).

That seems nuanced and reasonable enough, at least to me. If the fetus does survive at that point, adoption agencies can look into it, for instance.

 

[TastySuckToy]

That seems nuanced and reasonable enough, at least to me. If the fetus does survive at that point, adoption agencies can look into it, for instance.

Exactly. There's no need to kill the fetus/baby to terminate a pregnancy, if it can be saved/survive outside the womb.

 

[ll74]

I dunno, I recall a trend of celebrating abortions not that long ago. I view them as a necessary evil and a tragedy, and even when necessary, hardly an optimal outcome. No cause for celebration. That being said, I very much disagree with my family on that particular issue. I am pro-choice. They are not.

People are celebrating a woman being able to to choose her own healthcare. Republicans are obfuscating this for their own narratives.

Giving a woman access to make her own choices is the bottom line.

The right will just appeal to emotion by talking about "killing babies"

I support a woman making choices with her healthcare providers and while roe isn't fully what I prefer, advocate for codifying that compromise federally.

 

[ll74]

Abortions are the single leading cause of death in the black community.

No it isn't.

Now, I don't give a rats ass one way or another but when abortions are the leading cause of death within any ethnic community, that community has a problem.

Birth is required for a death certificate to be issued.

 

[Treeview]

I think the best way to tackle abortion is reasonable sex education resources, that would contribute to the need for abortion plummeting.

With the number of contraceptive options available and reproductive education, the need for abortions should be negligible anyway.

Go back a few years to see what happened in Colorado when birth control was made bery accessible along with better sex education.

 

[Lazaran]

It would not surprise me liberals on this board consider this a matter of great concern. lol. Please share the link that cites Trump’s statement on banning porn and the link that validates your assertion that Trump has endorsed Project 2025 in its entirety.

BabyBoobs managed to LIE and GASLIGHT and SEA LION in ONE POST!!!

The MAGAT / RWCJ TRIFECTA!!!



BabyBoobs

 

[Pad_Foot]

Does insurance cover the cost of IVF now? All of it?

What will covering all the other IVF cost ?

Where is the money coming from? Tariffs? Drilling??

 

[TastySuckToy]

Birth is required for a death certificate to be issued.

Post said 'leading cause of death', not 'leading cause of death certificates'.

Living things can die and be counted as a death without being issued a birth certificate. The stupidity of your objectuon here is absurd.

 

[SevMax2]

We need to break up the major tech firms and reinstate net neutrality, not try to ban porn and control people's private sex lives, but what do I know? If Kamala started talking anti-trust action, fines, and net neutrality, she would certainly be a bit more persuasive, even if I thought her likely insincere (she's insincere about most things, so at this point, I have to decide if she'll be sufficiently pressured to keep her word). Maybe after a few mimosas, she can get enough courage to defy her handlers or whatever.

 

[ll74]

Post said 'leading cause of death', not 'leading cause of death certificates'.

So how, specifically, are you measuring deaths?

Living things can die and be counted as a death without being issued a birth certificate. The stupidity of your objectuon here is absurd.

Being born is essential to being an independent human being. Ending a pregnancy happens with and without medical intervention. Do you include miscarriages?

We get it....you're against abortion. You don't need to conflate shit to express that viewpoint.

 

[Pad_Foot]

My parents absolutely do. So does my sister. So does my brother, come to think of it. I think that life begins at conception myself, but I don't believe that sentient life or personhood does.

Hmmm? Is a sperm alive?
Sperm can be frozen
Your lil’ living embryos can be frozen, yes? For decades if needed!
Hmmm.. flies can be frozen and revived like magic.
Name a mammal that can be frozen.
Life? Big deal! No!!
Sentient.. viable human being? Ok
A mother’s life vs unborn? No question the woman is more important than child.
Or, would anyone choose an unborn child over their daughter’s life.
Would anyone one choose the one child bs the other three the woman might have??
Women are dying because politicians have made medical aid impossible!
It’s the WOMAN’S decision not the sperm donor.

 

[TastySuckToy]

So how, specifically, are you measuring deaths?

Ask the poster. You're the one adding the term 'certificate' and trying to change the argument.

Being born is essential to being an independent human being.

And having a birth certificate is not, thus further demonstrating your stupidity of introducing the paperwork as any kind of necessity to the definition of death.

We get it....you're against abortion. You don't need to conflate shit to express that viewpoint.

And now you're proving you're illiterate, since I just clearly laid out my stance on terminating pregnancies just a couple of posts ago.

 

[Saint_Ann]

And women have been screaming about the danger for years. Nobody took us seriously in 2016. People were having too much fun hating on Hillary Clinton. And now here we are.

I think it was brilliant!

 

[Bodington]

I believe a dose of reality is in order to answer the OP in this thread. I sincerely believe that the absolute hatred of Trump robs one of intellectual discernment and such haters can easily be identified as belonging to that group of people who can be fooled all the time as reiterated by Pres Lincoln’s famous quote. As an example one of the main mantras one hears constantly from the Dems and their lapdog sycophants, the main stream media, regarding this upcoming election, that it is a fight for Democracy. If Trump does get elected it will be the end of democracy in America as we know it. He will impose an authoritarian regime that will run rough shod over the Constitution and rip it apart.

This viewpoint was amply articulated by a female speaker at the Democratic National Convention (sorry I forgot her name nor am I in the mood to try and research her name) who said in affect that if Trump does get elected it will usher in a sinister dark period in American history. Why, she averred that Trump will target and punish his political opponents and even jail them! OMG! Why even the ladies of “The View”, a pretentiously silly liberal biased daytime TV talk show are fearful that they could be subject to personal revenge if Trump were to regain the Presidency. In pronouncing such a dire forecast, that speaker at the DNC was apparently unaware that Peter Navarro who had served in Trump’s cabinet had just finished his four months prison sentence in time to speak at the Republican National Convention. Also, Steve Bannon who was one of Trump’s 2016 campaign managers and served for a time as an advisor during Trump’s administration, is currently in jail since July 1, 2024.

Their crime? Why they both refused to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena issued by the relevant Congressional committee to produce them. Ergo they were in contempt of Congress; obviously a pernicious crime indeed, surely subject to the full extent of the LAW, and therefore they were justifiably punished. But wait a minute! Didn’t Eric Holder, the AG for Pres Obama defy a Congressional subpoena and refused to produce demanded documents? How about the current AG Merrick Garland who also has failed to produce a document in his possession and has ignored the Congressional subpoena issued. I know that those two gentlemen have not been imprisoned nor am I aware of them being in any legal jeopardy. Whatever happened to the cliché “No one is above the law”?

And of course we have the case against Donald Trump himself. Do any of you Trump haters genuinely believe that had he not decided to contest the Presidency that he would still be in the same legal jeopardy as he now finds himself? If you do, I suggest you ought to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It is seriously hampering your mental health.

Now as to the subject matter on hand, I would advise the author of this thread not to worry unduly. Project 2025 is not in any way, shape or form, part and parcel of the official Republican Party platform. Nor does Trump have any personal connection to it; he probably hasn’t even read it. It’s not at all in his agenda should he win in November. So I’m quite confident in suggesting that banning pornography will definitely not be something Trump would do; he has bigger fish to fry.

My personal view is that banning pornography would not be such a bad thing for society. In any case it would still be available albeit it would be more costly and difficult to acquire. However, the prohibition of pornography would have a salutary benefit in general literature. It forces authors not to be lazy but be more inventive in describing sex scenes. Case in point is Thomas Hardy’s novel “Tess of the d'Urbervilles”.

In that novel there is a scene wherein the seducer of the titled heroine is sexually aroused by observing Tess milking a cow. Apparently, most milkers while doing this chore would rest their foreheads flat against the flank of the cow. However, Tess would rest one side of her face against the flank and would have her eyes closed. The sight of her milking the cow in this manner stimulated his senses such that he went on to subsequently seduce and presumably deflower her.

Bear in mind that this novel was published in 1891 right in midst of the ultimate prudish mores of Queen Victoria’s reign. And yet despite the absence of graphic detail featured in contemporary literature, I consider Hardy’s prose in this scene as one of the most erotic writing I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. I was so impressed that I decided to replicate the scene in my novel “Vivian Laaning”. As Wisconsin is the state most renowned for its dairy industry, I had my locale picked out. Since nowadays cows are almost exclusively milked by machines, I had to invent a plausible rationale why my heroine was milking a cow manually. And of course, reflective of the raison d'être of this website, I had my heroine milk the cow while naked. It was early in the morning you see.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Abortions are safe, legal and rare.

Promoting their legality is the above.

The right has distorted the perception of abortions to the point of absurdity. Trump even mentioned "post birth abortions" on the campaign trail.

The left hasn't changed anything but instead have been forced to advocate for access for all women, as the right has successfully moved to restrict that access....to the point where many states have little to no abortion access while doctors in many states are afraid of legal action for providing a abortions.

A million abortions per year is fucking rare??