Trump Loyalists Open Portal To Christian Hell

[bodysong]

Trump Loyalists Open Portal To Christian Hell


They haved scraped the bottom, once too often.


This week, they really have gone too far.


I am puzzled, as to how they will justify this.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Now what did he/they do?

Trump Loyalists Open Portal To Christian Hell


They haved scraped the bottom, once too often.


This week, they really have gone too far.


I am puzzled, as to how they will justify this.

 

[Dumpington]

bodysong writes: "Trump Loyalists Open Portal To Christian Hell"

I don't think that President Trump will be losing the Christian vote anytime soon. WHY do you suppose the Democratic Party chose this time to openly endorse after-birth abortions? Have they completely given-up on ever winning back Christian voters to their increasingly pro-atheistic party?

And WHY have the Democrats so warmly embraced Islam? Does the average Democrat voter not have any idea as to what Islamic Sharia Law advocates against women's & gay rights? Or are they ONLY electing anti-Jewish Muslims to the U.S. House of Representatives as a means of showing their opposition to American values & President Trump?

And WHY are modern Democrats increasingly pushing for more socialism here in America at a time when the entire world is watching the once-prosperous, oil-rich nation of Venezuela coming apart at the seams as a result of several years of socialist economics? Have they never heard of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her famous observation: "Socialism only works until you've run out of other people's money!"

 

[KeithD]

The evangelical, fundamentalist "Christian" vote. Not everyone churched in a Christian denomination in the United States is that stupid.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "The evangelical, fundamentalist "Christian" vote. Not everyone churched in a Christian denomination in the United States is that stupid."

Not every evangelical fundamentalist is a Christian, Keith - for example, the evangelical fundamentalist ATHEISTS in this country have made huge gains within the Democratic Party, now controlling much of that party's political direction.

The ONLY group of Christians still tolerated in today's Democratic Party circles are BLACK Christians, and that's only because the black Christian vote continues to go heavily for Democrat candidates - FOR NOW - but those black Christians within the party have been directed to remain SILENT on issues like abortion & same-sex marriage.

Ditto for hispanic-Christian Democrats. The Democratic Party WANTS hispanic votes, but NOT their input regarding those sensitive issues that affect that party's multi-gender and pro-post-birth abortion agendas. Liberals believe that giving minorities billions of dollar's-worth of tax-payer-funded freebies should be more-than-enough to completely silence any moral beliefs they may have.

 

[YDB95]

Cite, please, on this "post-birth abortion" nonsense. Put up or shut up.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 wrote: "Cite, please, on this "post-birth abortion" nonsense. Put up or shut up."

Yes, it's all pretty horrific.

Several Democratic Party-run states continue trying to ease restrictions on live-birth-abortions in order to please their pro-abortion base. Ralph Northam, the Democrat governor of Virginia, was asked just last month what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at an abortion under his plan, and his answer was chilling: “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

New York state's governor Andrew Cuomo is also signing legislation to make late-late-term abortions legal, as his Democratic Party fears that that President Trump now has the power to appoint even more pro-life U.S. Supreme Court judges in the aftermath of the 2018 elections with the Democrats losing two more U.S. Senate seats!

The pro-abortion Dems are pushing new legislation that would have made Dr. Kermit Gosnell's horrific crimes LEGAL under their new direction. If you've never heard of him, Gosnell was an abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures. The guy was a monster who would be celebrated by many in today's pro-abortion left.

 

[YDB95]

Several Democratic Party-run states continue trying to ease restrictions on live-birth-abortions in order to please their pro-abortion base. Ralph Northam, the Democrat governor of Virginia, was asked just last month what would happen if a child was born after a failed attempt at an abortion under his plan, and his answer was chilling: “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

First of all, the term "live-birth abortion" is absolutely meaningless. There literally is no such thing. Secondly, I don't see what's objectionable about Northam's comment. The scenario it describes would indeed be tragic, but it's also extremely rare - to the point where there probably isn't a single real-life example known to have happened. Not one. Of course, a couple of ways to make it even less likely would be to keep abortion legal and accessible in the early weeks of pregnancy, and to make birth control more accessible to all. I'd bet my bottom dollar you're staunchly opposed to both, though.

New York state's governor Andrew Cuomo is also signing legislation to make late-late-term abortions legal, as his Democratic Party fears that that President Trump now has the power to appoint even more pro-life U.S. Supreme Court judges in the aftermath of the 2018 elections with the Democrats losing two more U.S. Senate seats!

"Late-late term abortion" also has no real meaning. Now, if you're referring to third-trimester abortions, they're already legal under certain very specific circumstances, but there literally isn't any evidence that anyone has ever had one electively. It's absurd to think anyone would: they're extremely expensive, only available in the first place if the mother can get three doctors to concur that it's medically necessary, and that can only happen if either the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has a defect that would preclude anything resembling a normal life (i.e. being born without a brain, etc.)

The pro-abortion Dems are pushing new legislation that would have made Dr. Kermit Gosnell's horrific crimes LEGAL under their new direction.

Baloney. Kermit Gosnell is a monster, but guess what? The only reason why any woman ever went to him looking for an abortion is because the anti-choice movement had successfully thrown up so many roadblocks to getting one any other way in Pennsylvania.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "I don't see what's objectionable about Northam's comment."

Virginia's Governor Northam was asked in a radio interview what would happen to a child that was born after a failed abortion - and this was his reply: “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, if the mother doesn't want this newborn baby, we'll just let it die. That's HORRIFIC!

"Kermit Gosnell is a monster, but guess what? The only reason why any woman ever went to him looking for an abortion is because the anti-choice movement had successfully thrown up so many roadblocks to getting one any other way in Pennsylvania."

I disagree. The pro-choice crowd holds abortion as a sacred rite. Even that phrase "pro-choice" is meaningless semantics designed to make something horrific sound much more palatable. The Nazi Germans recognized that back in the early 1940's when they coined the term "the Final Solution" to describe their planned murder of six-million Jews at death camps like Auschwitz. It just sounded better! I mean, "the Final Solution" comes across as a whole lot less-brutal that "the Holocaust," doesn't it? And "pro-choice" sounds far less monstrous than "pro-abortion," am I right? - but in the end it's all the same thing!

 

[YDB95]

Virginia's Governor Northam was asked in a radio interview what would happen to a child that was born after a failed abortion - and this was his reply: “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, if the mother doesn't want this newborn baby, we'll just let it die. That's HORRIFIC!

You're ignoring volumes of context here (probably on purpose). Late term abortions only occur under certain extreme circumstances, almost always involving severe birth defects that mean the baby would never live a normal life. In other words, Northam was NOT talking about a healthy, viable baby. Ever. You know what I think is horrific? Forcing a woman to give birth knowing the baby will certainly either die quite soon or have no chance whatsoever at anything resembling a normal life. I repeat, there is literally not a shred of evidence that there has ever been an elective late term abortion. Not a single one. It only happens in circumstances that are already nightmarish for the parents, and they do not need Dumpington telling them what they're doing is "horrific" on top of everything else.

I disagree. The pro-choice crowd holds abortion as a sacred rite. Even that phrase "pro-choice" is meaningless semantics designed to make something horrific sound much more palatable. The Nazi Germans recognized that back in the early 1940's when they coined the term "the Final Solution" to describe their planned murder of six-million Jews at death camps like Auschwitz. It just sounded better! I mean, "the Final Solution" comes across as a whole lot less-brutal that "the Holocaust," doesn't it? And "pro-choice" sounds far less monstrous than "pro-abortion," am I right? - but in the end it's all the same thing!

First of all, I am pro-choice and I've been active in the fight to preserve choice. I think I know what we do or don't hold as "a sacred rite". What we DO hold sacred is a woman's right to make up her own mind about her own body. That's quite different from what you suggest there, although I doubt you can tell the difference.

And no, pro-choice does not equal "pro-abortion". It means we believe it's none of the government's damn business if a woman decides she can't cope or doesn't want a baby at this point in her life. I've met plenty of pro-choice women who would never themselves have an abortion.

I do agree with you about semantics. That's why I refuse to use "pro-life" for people who really just care about forcing women to give birth to babies they don't want, and then don't give a damn what happens to the mother or the baby afterward. If you hate abortion so much, tell me: how do you feel about making contraception more affordable and accessible for all? That is how you reduce the demand for abortions.

 

[TontoedRanger]

https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/5a/fWrghzgE_o.png

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "And no, pro-choice does not equal "pro-abortion". It means we believe it's none of the government's damn business if a woman decides she can't cope or doesn't want a baby at this point in her life."

The city of Sparta in ancient Greece wanted only strong & healthy children raised to be citizens, and so when a frail or sickly child was born, they'd leave it on the mountainside to die. It wasn't murder to them; it was just how they viewed human life. Today we'd be horrified at that mindset, because, once again, it's a human life!

In modern America there are now people claiming to be "pro-choice," as the phrase "pro-abortion" just sounds monstrous. And there are now governors & legislators who celebrate new laws allowing a woman & her doctor to decide whether or not they wish to resuscitated the woman's child after it's been born and entered our world. Human life clearly means no more to these people than it meant to the ancient Spartans.

TontoedRanger - You do realize that the Crusades (from 1096 to 1271) were simply the Christian nations of Western Europe attempting to re-conquer Christian lands forcibly conquered by the Muslims, right? For example, Spain today would be an Islamic nation were it not for the "RECONQUISTA" of 711 to 1492.

Does ANYBODY today seriously believe that the world would be a better place if Spain had remained Islamic, and looked today like one of those north African sh*tholes? Even now, the Spanish continue to hold onto a small handful of coastal enclaves on the north African coast, and they have them surrounded with BORDER WALLS to keep northern African migrants from flooding in - seriously, look up Cueta or Melilla sometime!

 

[YDB95]

In modern America there are now people claiming to be "pro-choice," as the phrase "pro-abortion" just sounds monstrous.

Nope. We use "pro-choice" because "pro-abortion" would be just as inaccurate as "pro-life" is. You are painting with a VERY broad brush on an issue that has a lot of subtleties that you're choosing to ignore.

And there are now governors & legislators who celebrate new laws allowing a woman & her doctor to decide whether or not they wish to resuscitated the woman's child after it's been born and entered our world. Human life clearly means no more to these people than it meant to the ancient Spartans.

That simply isn't true. We're talking about extreme cases in which a panel of doctors has agreed it's the only option, and in which it's also extremely unlikely that the baby would be alive in any event - it's just providing for that remote possibility. There are only two doctors in the entire United States who even do that procedure anymore (probably because a third one was murdered in his own church several years ago). How often do you think it happens?

Now, honestly, Dumpington, do you really believe pro-choicers are monsters who want to murder children just because they can? Look, I don't doubt your sincerity in believing you're saving lives here - you're wrong, but you're sincere. Do you think we're any less sincere in our beliefs that women are capable of making their own decisions about their own bodies?

Oh, and the ninth crusade started in 1271. It ended in 1291.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Now, honestly, Dumpington, do you really believe pro-choicers are monsters who want to murder children just because they can? Look, I don't doubt your sincerity in believing you're saving lives here - you're wrong, but you're sincere. Do you think we're any less sincere in our beliefs that women are capable of making their own decisions about their own bodies?"

You're a decent person, YDB95, and I appeciate your patience with me.

So many people on this political forum have a bad habit of lashing out at those with whom they disagree, and I'm always pleased to run into someone who behaves differently. No, I don't believe that all pro-choicers are monsters. Many of them are people I know and am friends with, but that doesn't mean that I feel compelled to remain silent on this (and other) issues of importance.

I think you are sincere, and feel deeply that you are in the right. My opinions won't change that. Again, thank you for sharing your views without vitriol. I hope that we can continue to respectfully disagree with one another on this issue.