(02-02-2017, 11:53 AM)F.U. Wrote: Just a thought, but for sake of arguing, lets say that 3% number is right. Why not restrict abortions to Rape cases, incest, or medical reasons and eliminate the I just don't want to have a baby part. If that is done it may cut that number in ¹⁄₂ . So why not save the 98.5% of PP and just get rid of that 1.5%? Wouldn't that be a better deal? You can still receive all the other services that PP offers. You just cant kill a baby just because you don't want it.

Honestly F.U., I've made my views clear on the subject so very many times here, and I understand and accept your views and the views of others who've weighed in.

Some people tend to change their views on the subject frequently, but most of us are pretty consistent and I feel like the abortion debate is a dead horse. I don't want to have the discussion/debate again, especially not in the Trump thread.

And, yes, you can have a pregnancy terminated just because you don't want it; it's the law in this country. But, it's much more complex a personal matter and decision for most women. You don't want women to have that choice under any conditions but those you feel are "moral". I get it, I just don't agree with you.

Here's the link to the abortion thread if you want my views on what you proposed and other related issues. http://mockforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4801

I don't agree with that. Look at pics of a 12 week old baby/fetus. They look like a human.

On a side note I have a friend that just gave birth at 22 weeks. That baby is still in the hospital machines keeping it alive. Would you consider that baby able to be aborted?

For you crime case people, Can a person get charged for two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman? I believe the answer is yes. If so, at what stage does that rule begin to apply?

(02-02-2017, 12:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 11:53 AM)F.U. Wrote: Just a thought, but for sake of arguing, lets say that 3% number is right. Why not restrict abortions to Rape cases, incest, or medical reasons and eliminate the I just don't want to have a baby part. If that is done it may cut that number in ¹⁄₂ . So why not save the 98.5% of PP and just get rid of that 1.5%? Wouldn't that be a better deal? You can still receive all the other services that PP offers. You just cant kill a baby just because you don't want it.

Honestly F.U., I've made my views clear on the subject so very many times here, and I understand and accept your views and the views of others who've weighed in.

Some people tend to change their views on the subject frequently, but most of us are pretty consistent and I feel like the abortion debate is a dead horse. I don't want to have the discussion/debate again, especially not in the Trump thread.

And, yes, you can have a pregnancy terminated just because you don't want it; it's the law in this country. But, it's much more complex a personal matter and decision for most women. You don't want women to have that choice under any conditions but those you feel are "moral". I get it, I just don't agree with you.

Here's the link to the abortion thread if you want my views on what you proposed and other related issues. http://mockforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4801

Thanks for that link. I did not know, or forgot , that thread existed.

(02-02-2017, 12:07 PM)F.U. Wrote: Would you consider that baby able to be aborted?

I just stated my opinion.

(02-02-2017, 12:09 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 12:07 PM)F.U. Wrote: Would you consider that baby able to be aborted?

I just stated my opinion.

(02-02-2017, 12:12 PM)F.U. Wrote:

The feeling is mutual.

(02-02-2017, 12:13 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 12:12 PM)F.U. Wrote:

The feeling is mutual.

A simple yes or know is what I was after. Not you sidestepping the question.

(02-02-2017, 12:16 PM)F.U. Wrote: A simple yes or know is what I was after. Not you sidestepping the question.

If you're still confused, go back and read what I said.

I just want to hear it from the horses mouth. Would you have ben OK with aborting that child at that state?

(02-02-2017, 12:22 PM)F.U. Wrote: Would you have ben OK with aborting that child at that state?

Are you deliberately being dense? Read my post. I cannot be any more clear than that. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me, what the fuck is wrong with you. Yes or No? Is that to hard to do? Its less letters to type that the shit you have ben typing.

A viable pregnancy is one that can potentially lead to the birth of a living baby. In other words, a pregnancy is viable if it seems to be progressing normally, there are no indicators of miscarriage, and there is a reasonable expectation that the pregnancy will result in the birth of a live infant. 


So in my case things were not going as planned and had they not taken that child she would have miscarried. So I guess you would have ben fine if they reached in with snippers and cut that kids head off.

(02-02-2017, 12:28 PM)F.U. Wrote: So I guess you would have ben fine if they reached in with snippers and cut that kids head off.

Absolutely.

...and then go sell the parts.

(02-02-2017, 12:31 PM)Duchess Wrote:

...and then go sell the parts.

HotD, does this mean that sanctions against Russia have just been relaxed?

Today, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published Cyber-related General License (GL) 1, "Authorizing Certain Transactions with the Federal Security Service," pursuant to Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities." GL 1 authorizes certain transactions with the Federal Security Service (a.k.a. FSB) that are necessary and ordinarily incident to requesting certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in the Russian Federation, as well as transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to comply with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions or investigations involving, the FSB.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center...02_33.aspx

Yeah, Trump is lifting some of the sanctions put in place after the Ukraine annex.

Doing so is against the advice of many in the Intelligence and State Departments and undermines the joint sanctions invoked by our allies in Europe, allies who are in much closer proximity to Russia and what they perceive as a hostile take-over threat (especially to the Baltics and Eastern European countries that were part of the former USSR, which Putin appears to want to re-establish though the now-sovereign countries don't).

That's my understanding.

Thank you. I didn't think it could possibly be true so I questioned my comprehension of it.

(02-02-2017, 01:39 PM)Duchess Wrote:
Thank you. I didn't think it could possibly be true so I questioned my comprehension of it.

He's gonna have problems with Republicans in Congress over this, I strongly suspect. Republican and Democratic congresspersons are in almost unanimous agreement when it comes to Putin and Russia.

Mitch McConnell already advised Trump to heed the advice of those with deeper insight and experience and not to lift sanctions at this juncture.

(02-02-2017, 05:26 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: Dont be like that Hotd. You make strong valid points. But if you were doing an academic paper you have a word count. I want to hear what you have to say but its hard at first to read it on my phone. Im not getting any younger

I was being sincere, not upset, aussie.

But, I understand the phone viewing issue; I don't like to post or read from my phone. So, I'll try to at least break up the longer posts if I can't say what I want with fewer words. That may be the last act of consideration I'll be able to afford you as a valued ally.

Trump's gunning for PM Turnbull because he doesn't like the immigrant/refugee swap deal to which Turnbull and Obama agreed in order to help solve your refugee relocation problem.

Trump refers to vetted and legal refugees in the Australian refugee camps as 'illegal immigrants in prisons' and believes you Aussies are looking to send the next Boston Bomber to America. How could you, aussie?!