***Official Political Discussion Thread***

So as someone who is pro-life but would be comfortable with exemptions for abortion being rape or health reasons, do you support this ruling that does not allow those two exemptions?

As a hint, you aren't actually answering my question but making comments about the subject.

Clarification: Looking for I support this decision or I am against it

I think that this bill has the exemptions I support despite them not being explicitly stated. I think they fall under the umbrella of health-reason exemption.

If they do not, then I don't support the bill. I think I'm being pretty clear about my position. If the law forces rape victims to not have abortions I think that is ridiculous.
 
Had to look her up. Yes she is. I thought your issue was men making decisions about women's bodies. Now is it white people?
White women will not vote in their best interests, especially those on the right wing. That is how the white power structure works, they use what are considered the minority. Anything that gives white men power, in any way shape or form, works for them. They've forced white women, just like white female trump supporters who do not take issue with his misogyny, sexism, anti woman remarks, to abide by white privilege instead of human rights.
 
White women will not vote in their best interests, especially those on the right wing. That is how the white power structure works, they use what are considered the minority. Anything that gives white men power, in any way shape or form, works for them. They've forced white women, just like white female trump supporters who do not take issue with his misogyny, sexism, anti woman remarks, to abide by white privilege instead of human rights.

So yes?
 
I know what I'm getting aepps20 aepps20 for his birthday

giphy (50).gif


I need a pair ASAP.
 
another gem from the pedophile apologist.

Do you know what that means? Because they mentioned rape and incest victims. If it in nonconsensual sex with a minor it would fall under rape. If it is nonconsensual sex in general it would fall under rape. If it is consenting adults is it an incest victim? In any event, I stated that I would support an exemption for "incest victims," no matter the definition.
 
If the age of consent in a state is 16, and a father has groomed his daughter for years and then coerces her into sex at age 17, she still technically consented, statutory rape laws won't cover that, incest laws would, but now the **** is she not a victim.

I swear you invent new ways to sound like a damn scumbag. At it is always when it involves sexual misconduct.

Really says something about you.
 
If the age of consent in a state is 16, and a father has groomed his daughter for years and then coerces her into sex at age 17, she still technically consented, statutory rape laws won't cover that, incest laws would, but now the **** is she not a victim.

I swear you invent new ways to sound like a damn scumbag. At it is always when it involves sexual misconduct.

Really says something about you.

Just say that he really sounds like a trump supporter, and that will cover it.
 
If the age of consent in a state is 16, and a father has groomed his daughter for years and then coerces her into sex at age 17, she still technically consented, statutory rape laws won't cover that, but now the **** is she not a victim.

I swear you invent new ways to sound like a damn scumbag. At it is always when it involves sexual misconduct.

Really says something about you.

I never said someone was not a victim. I said I didn't know what it is. You've defined it and now I know. I thought all of that was rape.

I do not think that a 17 year old having sex with her father would fall outside the scope of statutory rape in any state. But you can correct me if I am wrong. Even in the states where the age of consent is 16, I do not think it is legal for a 40 year old to do it. So, you are probably wrong on the law.

Instead of using the name calling, why not inform? I legit asked a question. And I never once implied they weren't victims and even stated that I would support an exemption to the abortion laws for that category of individuals despite not understanding what it meant.

The fact that you want to find issues where there are none really says something about you.
 
If the age of consent in a state is 16, and a father has groomed his daughter for years and then coerces her into sex at age 17, she still technically consented, statutory rape laws won't cover that, incest laws would, but now the **** is she not a victim.

I swear you invent new ways to sound like a damn scumbag. At it is always when it involves sexual misconduct.

Really says something about you.

When one is on the side of Pedos, rapists and other scumbags, you are on the WRONG SIDE.
 
I’m for abortions
Sometimes folks just not ready
Hell A female I messed with got an abortion
My second bm
She had my son
And daughter back to back
Then got pregnant again right after
At the time taking care of 2 kids was manageable
But we knew a third atbthat time woulda been too much
So we went to the doctor together to get that abortion
She got pregnant with my daughter right after having my son
We was chillin at the doctor getting an abortion for her
But we were both quiet
The doctor was taking EXTREMELY long
We just looked at each other at the same time
Said what u thinking at the same time
And we both took it as a sign and just left and had my daughter with not a second thought
But the 3rd child when she was pregnant
There was no signs or nothing
We knew now wasn’t the right time.
My bad if the story is long
But if we woulda had that 3rd kid
Our lives woulda changed drastically
And not in a good way
 
I doubt anyone in this thread can find the state where the hypothetical described by Rusty would not fall under statutory rape. Yet people will take what he said and run with it. Gotta love the echo chamber.
 
I do no such thing. Can you tell me the state where what Rusty described would not be considered rape?
Nope, I can't. But I can speak to your intentions. That is what I agree with in regard to Shackleford. Let's use my question about the woman who brought about that abortion bill. You only said, suggested that it was a woman that brought it forth, leaving out that she was white. In the manner that you distributed the information, this is a lie through omission. You knew she was white, you left that out intentionally, in order to make the bill seem just. It is your disingenuous actions that people see.
 
I do no such thing. Can you tell me the state where what Rusty described would not be considered rape?

The same device you are using to make these posts could be used to answer the question of "what is incest rape"

I literally wondered why you hadn't Google'd what it menat when you initially wrote that you didn't know what it was. Like you wrote out what you didn't know then sat back and went about your day seemingly satisfied with not knowing what it meant
 
Back
Top Bottom