Trump will vote to overturn Florida's abortion restrictions

That just isn't a true statement. I know that your god-like leader has told you that it is a thing... but it isn't. That's just his normal fear spreading to get your vote. Just like a vast majority of the illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists that were let out of insane asylums to be sent here by their governments. Not a thing!

I was humored though by a statement made by Eric Trump about the importance of abortion regulation.

“At the end of the day, this country has real holes in the roof. And you’ve got to fix those holes, and you’ve got to stop worrying about the little spot on the wall in the basement,” he said. For him, abortion isn't really the 'thing' to be concerned about at this point. That's just a stain on the basement wall. There are holes in the roof that are more important.

Sometimes, listening to MAGA, you'd think the issue of abortion regulation is the most important issue that our nation faces. Personally, I think that the most important issue that believers are missing in all of this is that we don't tell them about Jesus as we wag our pointing fingers at their sin.

What do you know about VP Harris's personal understanding on the gestational limits for abortion? Even in California, where she was involved in some politics on the matter, we find a limit of 24 weeks except in extremely rare medically necessary situations.

In California, abortion is legal for any reason until approximately 6 months after you become pregnant1. You can use abortion pills up to 77 days (11 weeks) after the first day of your last period, and get an in-clinic abortion until 24 weeks (or later in some cases, for medical reasons)2. After that point, abortion is only legal in California until a fetus reaches 24 weeks or weighs 500 grams, unless the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk

I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you have to support that VP Harris thinks we should perform abortions up to and shortly past birth. Of course, I'd also be interested in seeing your evidence of abortion after birth. I think every state in the nation calls that murder and is a chargeable offense. What you got?

Vote wisely.

1.16 "per woman" not per person; so around 700M- not that I think the total is the more relevant figure than the rate.

With regard to this topic; it actually doesn't matter who you vote for. Both Trump and Harris' ideas are retarded.

Your thinking he changed his mind or something but he hasn't. Look at the dates on the videos in the OP and the one I gave in post twenty, yours is August 2024 the one I gave is from September 2023 which is over a year ago.

HI @SomeDisciple

I'd honestly have to check how the number is applied. I always considered birth rates to be based on a total population count. I could be wrong on that so I'll have to check it out. But yes, my point was that parents want to have children no matter the governmental regime that they live under. And they raise their children generally as they were raised and so they are accustomed to and consider it usual, whatever governmental system that they live under. Where did you get the number from?

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, there were just over 10 million births in 2021. That would be about 1% of the total population which closely agrees with what I posted on the matter.

Hi @SomeDisciple

And as I alluded, there are likely several reasons for the falling birth rates. Poverty is a big problem in much of China and most existing parents probably think that having another child may be too expensive for them. That's sad if it is so but could well be a realistic concern for young married couples. Couples over 35 with children may feel like they're over the hill for the child rearing game. I know that 40 is considered a very late age for a woman to give birth.

So, it's possible that you only have this small window of married couples who will want to have more than one child, at this point. Yes, the birth rate has fallen and now China is even allowing parents to have three children. I must agree that me personally, I wouldn't want to live under a governmental system that tells you how many children you can have. And I would not want to live under a governmental system that executes an employee for failing to stop the damage of a catastrophic flood in a country that probably doesn't allow much funding for public infrastructure projects. So the realy one who should be exectuted for such a charge is most likely Kim himself. (Do the N Koreans use the same naming scheme as China? Would his surname be Kim?)

John DB specified the per-woman ratio in the post I responded to; but yes, there are lots of different ratios you can look at for population growth.

It's not births-per-year either. It's the average of the number of births the living population living that year has had over a lifetime.

Communism and mass poverty go hand-in-hand.

You say you wouldn't want to live under their system; and I'm sure a lot of them don't like it either- and if they don't like it, why would they want to make someone else do it; especially someone that would be their own child?

People DO have children under all kinds of systems; but that doesn't mean they consciously want to. A lot of parents I know never planned on having kids, regret having kids, tell others "don't have kids"; or bad-mouth their kids to the point that it is obvious that they are the resentful that they have to be a parent to their child.

I'm glad Christians have seen that Jaybird is here simply gaslighting and trolling for Communist Harris. I do not respond to his posts. Pretty soon he will find himself among those being banned.

Hi @SomeDisciple

May be. I don't know myself. Most national birth ratios are determined by the number of births from year to year. Although, yes, if you wanted to, you could work up a ratio just for one day. But I believe that most birth ratios that nations publish is based on births per population. But I could be wrong, I'm no expert at it. But still I hope we can now put this to rest and just agree that couples in China want to have babies and I doubt that the governmental system they live under, except of course for regulations that say you can only have so many children, aren't too worried about the governmental system that they are going to be bringing their children up under. People in North Korea have children, too. They're even worse off than China and yet couples want to have children.

However, N. Korea is having the same issue as China in overall birth rate. I would attribute it more to poverty than government, but you could be right.

They also have a 96% marriage rate. Arranged marriages. They do it because of social pressure, not because they actually want to.

‘I want to be myself, not someone’s mom.’
Young North Korean women see marriage and kids as hardship and misery and want to focus on their own happiness.
By Seo Hye Jun and Choen Soram for RFA Korean
2024.03.08

And yet it is.
Trump is just a man.
As a Senator, she sponsored legislation that would ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and voted against a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

As Vice President, she condemned the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade—and became the White House’s leading voice on abortion.

Senator Harris voted against efforts to protect the lives of babies born alive after failed abortions.

As you say, "vote wisely."

Ok, and none of that addresses any issue of abortion up to or even shortly after birth.

What bill would you be referring to here?

Nothing speaks to personal responsibility like, "the woman whom you gave me, she gave me the fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

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 I rather that Sen. Harris saw it in much the same light.

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?

From the first link:
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.”

So, understand please that this new law would allow a doctor to let a baby die that was 22 weeks or less. That is the recommended medical process according to the NEJM, which is, I believe, one of the standard bearers of a lot of our medical processes. And would make it a personal decision, that one would likely have to prove for some medical reason, even after 22 weeks.

So, what would be gained by the creation and passage of this bill that we don't already have to deal with a phenomenon that isn't even happening?

Vote wisely, friend.

Sorry, let me word that a little better.

What would be gained by the creation and passage of this bill, that is not already covered under our laws? There is already case history that a doctor can be charged and found guilty for the act of merely letting a baby die. Surely that same law covers any doctor who might actively cause a baby to die. Like giving some kind of injection to stop the heartbeat of life. So what is gained here?

And yes, should have read literally one in a million.

Bearing false witness with this? You're sick.

I knew you'd dodge and obfuscate. She supports killing babies, before and after birth, and you're ok with that.

There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV

You are not my friend.

That's significant if true.

Can you provide a source or citation for your claim?

Exactly. Just last week Trump said 6 weeks is too short for abortion bans.

Oh that? They voted against it because what it was trying to accomplish was already codified into law, (under the "Born Alive Infants Protections Act" that was signed into law in 2002) so there was no reason to have redundant laws on the books.

Thanks for providing the link though.