Trump will vote to overturn Florida's abortion restrictions

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

tedincarolina

Active member
Jul 25, 2024
495
86
28
#61
That bill says it's about holding doctors or health practitioners legally accountable for providing care to a child who survives an abortion.

But there was a bill passed in 2002 that already makes it a criminal offense to let a born baby die. In fact, there was a case in 2013 where a doctor did just such a thing and was found guilty of three counts of murder.

The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org

So, I can appreciate your point here, that the new bill put legal ramifications on doctors if they don't do what they would normally do for a baby born at a particular gestational period much shorter than the 40 week normal process. But I think in practice, the bill was about as much waste of time and effort as the many election laws that are coming down the pike to stop a phenomenon that isn't happening. These abortions that might be considered as relevant to this law are literally millions to one.

PolitiFact | Reports of the 'born alive' abortion scenario are rare

"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of "Termination of Pregnancy," Lewis wrote in an email.

Just like the stolen election brouhaha, it isn't happening. So, I certainly don't fault a Senator for voting against a bill that seems to want to just add some legal penalties on the books for something that isn't happening out there in real life world; for which there are already laws on the books that make it a homicide offense to actively kill or to be shown to have 'let a baby die', as in the Gosnell case.

You're all tied up in knots that VP Harris is an evil person because she voted against a bill that really didn't mean anything as far as addressing any of the real world problems that people have. But because you believe the abortion issue to be the issue of sin that God has established before the foundations of the world were set in place, you've decided to fight this battle over some bill that was voted against. I get that! I just don't agree that it's an issue of any importance in this matter of whether or not abortions should be legal.

And right now, on this specific position, you're no better off voting for the GOP contender. He is on record pretty loudly that these 6 week bans that are being considered aren't long enough. So, understand that means that he isn't against abortion as you believe in your mind to think that he is. He may say that 6 is not enough and 24 is too many, but he isn't against abortion. The killing of an unborn child. Yet you are allowing this issue to color your behavior and your witness for Christ. You seem to be pouring out some reverent praise for some man that you believe to be God's man over an issue that he isn't even in agreement with you on. But that's the most important issue on which you are going to make your decision as to who you believe should run the nation for the next four years.

WHY?

Has he got video of you on Epstein's island? You are literally fighting an ugly battle with ugly words that isn't going to change under either of the present major contenders for the presidency. You don't find that odd?

First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said: “Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
21,452
7,799
113
#62
WOWSER. We have an admission. CAUGHT ON VIDEO. As if we did not already know!
BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a "Convicted Felon" Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg's Case is "Nonsense" And Alleges He Was "Stacking Charges"


Finally hit pay dirt isn't that right @JayBird @tedincarolina ?

KanekoaTheGreat on X: "This DOJ official admits the prosecution of Trump is a politicized perversion of justice, and they'll still lock him up in two weeks. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America." / X

Steven Crowder on X: "BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a "Convicted Felon" Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg's Case is "Nonsense" And https://t.co/IQhR0ax2pw" / X
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
21,452
7,799
113
#63
WOWSER. We have an admission. CAUGHT ON VIDEO. As if we did not already know!
BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a "Convicted Felon" Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg's Case is "Nonsense" And Alleges He Was "Stacking Charges"


Finally hit pay dirt isn't that right @JayBird @tedincarolina ?

KanekoaTheGreat on X: "This DOJ official admits the prosecution of Trump is a politicized perversion of justice, and they'll still lock him up in two weeks. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America." / X

Steven Crowder on X: "BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated "Perversion of Justice"; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a "Convicted Felon" Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg's Case is "Nonsense" And https://t.co/IQhR0ax2pw" / X
“He[Alvin Bragg] was just stacking charges and rearranging things just to make it fit a case.”
“I think the case is nonsense.”
“It’s a perversion of justice.”
“It’s a travesty of justice.”
“It’s a mockery of justice.”
“The whole thing is disgusting.”

“That’s why he’s[Trump] surging in the polls.”
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,927
1,267
113
#64
That bill says it's about holding doctors or health practitioners legally accountable for providing care to a child who survives an abortion.

But there was a bill passed in 2002 that already makes it a criminal offense to let a born baby die. In fact, there was a case in 2013 where a doctor did just such a thing and was found guilty of three counts of murder.

The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org

So, I can appreciate your point here, that the new bill put legal ramifications on doctors if they don't do what they would normally do for a baby born at a particular gestational period much shorter than the 40 week normal process. But I think in practice, the bill was about as much waste of time and effort as the many election laws that are coming down the pike to stop a phenomenon that isn't happening. These abortions that might be considered as relevant to this law are literally millions to one.

PolitiFact | Reports of the 'born alive' abortion scenario are rare

"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of "Termination of Pregnancy," Lewis wrote in an email.

Just like the stolen election brouhaha, it isn't happening. So, I certainly don't fault a Senator for voting against a bill that seems to want to just add some legal penalties on the books for something that isn't happening out there in real life world; for which there are already laws on the books that make it a homicide offense to actively kill or to be shown to have 'let a baby die', as in the Gosnell case.

You're all tied up in knots that VP Harris is an evil person because she voted against a bill that really didn't mean anything as far as addressing any of the real world problems that people have. But because you believe the abortion issue to be the issue of sin that God has established before the foundations of the world were set in place, you've decided to fight this battle over some bill that was voted against. I get that! I just don't agree that it's an issue of any importance in this matter of whether or not abortions should be legal.

And right now, on this specific position, you're no better off voting for the GOP contender. He is on record pretty loudly that these 6 week bans that are being considered aren't long enough. So, understand that means that he isn't against abortion as you believe in your mind to think that he is. He may say that 6 is not enough and 24 is too many, but he isn't against abortion. The killing of an unborn child. Yet you are allowing this issue to color your behavior and your witness for Christ. You seem to be pouring out some reverent praise for some man that you believe to be God's man over an issue that he isn't even in agreement with you on. But that's the most important issue on which you are going to make your decision as to who you believe should run the nation for the next four years.

WHY?

Has he got video of you on Epstein's island? You are literally fighting an ugly battle with ugly words that isn't going to change under either of the present major contenders for the presidency. You don't find that odd?

First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said: “Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”
you're not a father, are you. you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. i honestly don't care whom you vote for, but if you're going to claim to be a Christian, try to think like one.

the NEJM article you're quoting is about children who are actually born, not children who accidentally survive attempted murder.

read the bills. actually read them, and see what the differences are. here, i'll even help you.

HR 2175

S 311

S 311 would have amended Title 18; given teeth to HR 2175. i believe the reason the Ds opposed it is because it would have changed "partial-birth abortion" to "abortion", and provided real penalties to abortion "doctors".

i can't even believe we're having this argument at a Christian website. don't touch the "sacred cow" of the death cult.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
21,452
7,799
113
#65
you're not a father, are you. you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. i honestly don't care whom you vote for, but if you're going to claim to be a Christian, try to think like one.

the NEJM article you're quoting is about children who are actually born, not children who accidentally survive attempted murder.

read the bills. actually read them, and see what the differences are. here, i'll even help you.

HR 2175

S 311

S 311 would have amended Title 18; given teeth to HR 2175. i believe the reason the Ds opposed it is because it would have changed "partial-birth abortion" to "abortion", and provided real penalties to abortion "doctors".

i can't even believe we're having this argument at a Christian website. don't touch the "sacred cow" of the death cult.
Why? Why is every post they make a lie?
Fortunately, as in Adam, we are not deceived.
 

NightTwister

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2023
2,006
723
113
65
Colorado, USA
#67
That bill says it's about holding doctors or health practitioners legally accountable for providing care to a child who survives an abortion.

But there was a bill passed in 2002 that already makes it a criminal offense to let a born baby die. In fact, there was a case in 2013 where a doctor did just such a thing and was found guilty of three counts of murder.

The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org

So, I can appreciate your point here, that the new bill put legal ramifications on doctors if they don't do what they would normally do for a baby born at a particular gestational period much shorter than the 40 week normal process. But I think in practice, the bill was about as much waste of time and effort as the many election laws that are coming down the pike to stop a phenomenon that isn't happening. These abortions that might be considered as relevant to this law are literally millions to one.

PolitiFact | Reports of the 'born alive' abortion scenario are rare

"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of "Termination of Pregnancy," Lewis wrote in an email.

Just like the stolen election brouhaha, it isn't happening. So, I certainly don't fault a Senator for voting against a bill that seems to want to just add some legal penalties on the books for something that isn't happening out there in real life world; for which there are already laws on the books that make it a homicide offense to actively kill or to be shown to have 'let a baby die', as in the Gosnell case.

You're all tied up in knots that VP Harris is an evil person because she voted against a bill that really didn't mean anything as far as addressing any of the real world problems that people have. But because you believe the abortion issue to be the issue of sin that God has established before the foundations of the world were set in place, you've decided to fight this battle over some bill that was voted against. I get that! I just don't agree that it's an issue of any importance in this matter of whether or not abortions should be legal.

And right now, on this specific position, you're no better off voting for the GOP contender. He is on record pretty loudly that these 6 week bans that are being considered aren't long enough. So, understand that means that he isn't against abortion as you believe in your mind to think that he is. He may say that 6 is not enough and 24 is too many, but he isn't against abortion. The killing of an unborn child. Yet you are allowing this issue to color your behavior and your witness for Christ. You seem to be pouring out some reverent praise for some man that you believe to be God's man over an issue that he isn't even in agreement with you on. But that's the most important issue on which you are going to make your decision as to who you believe should run the nation for the next four years.

WHY?

Has he got video of you on Epstein's island? You are literally fighting an ugly battle with ugly words that isn't going to change under either of the present major contenders for the presidency. You don't find that odd?

First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said: “Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”
You posted the same thing again. See my response: https://christianchat.com/threads/t...das-abortion-restrictions.216191/post-5359267
 

Susanna

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2023
1,548
477
83
48
Galveston and Houston
#68
Why? Why is every post they make a lie?
Fortunately, as in Adam, we are not deceived.
People have different opinions. That doesn’t make it lies. If you were capable of understanding what the people you see as a problem are saying you would see that we are conservatives opposed to abortion, communism, the growing of federal government and a so called conservative going by the name Trump.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,047
3,427
113
#70

JayBird

Active member
Aug 15, 2024
792
83
28
#77
Kamala Harris: I support taxpayer-funded, unrestricted abortion at any time during the pregnancy (and shortly thereafter).
That's already been debunked. I guess you forgot.
 

NightTwister

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2023
2,006
723
113
65
Colorado, USA
#80
Sorry, but as we covered earlier I don't derive conclusions based on "because NightTwister says so".
No, we didn't cover this earlier, YOU THINK you did. Do you have a specific quote from Kamala Harris that she voted no because it was already a law, or are we supposed to accept it because "JayBird says so?" And btw, the bills were NOT the same.