To hope that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election

[RosaMoline]

….it’s getting closer.
I was hoping that Kamala would be a shoo-in for the presidency, but looking at the betting odds, I’m feeling quite pessimistic.
It’s incomprehensible to me that a convicted felon, racist, rapist, liar and misogynist who spurred on an insurrection - after everything that’s happened - is running for office again and may very well win.
It’s comforting to read though that fellow Brits DON’T support him.
Apart from Reform. Obviously.
yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

It is a Christian viewpoint, orthodox Christians believe life begins at birth and is a gift from God. I am not imposing that view on anyone but its what I believe. You don't have to agree of course.

I agree women should have the choice. I actually was at one point thinking of donating eggs to a very close friend (they asked it would be weird otherwise) but they unexpectedly got pregnant. I am definitely not against it. But that made me think a lot more about what I did/didn't find OK (for myself not talking about the law) and how I felt about my unfertilised eggs, embryos etc. The line for me is sex selective stuff/genetic testing for shallow reasons though I couldn't articulate why in a rational way.
What I don't get is why people are for IVF, and will even encourage others to get IVF, but be completely against abortion because "life begins at conception". I don't mean in a horrible "If some women can't have abortions, other women can't have IVF" way, it just isn't consistent. And in America abortion bans ended up impacting IVF treatments upsetting a lot of people who hadn't expected that to happen. And I just don't get what the difference is in their minds.

A far too high proportion of prolifers are also in favour of the death penalty which to me seem completely contradictory!

Thank you for explaining, I was curious but I understand. I wonder if many studies are carried out about various factors like the socio economic status of mothers seeking terminations as I feel over time this can also produce similar eugenic results to those in IVF. I'm just thinking aloud now! Others would counter this by suggesting that the embryos in IVF are at a far earlier developmental stage than many abortions are carried out - when a feotus does respond to pain etc... also it's interesting that intentional creation with a view to destruction is deemed differently to the collateral destruction of a foetus being aborted is deemed a greater evil. Personally I feel if something is wrong, it's wrong, no matter if one person or everyone did it. There are few things that fall into the category of "well, it's ok, as long as it only happens every so often". Thank you for taking the time to explain this though and I hope I haven't derailed the thread, it just piqued my curiosity!

A far too high proportion of prolifers are also in favour of the death penalty which to me seem completely contradictory!

I think it's about control. They certainly don't care about life itself.

Yes. And you can bet your bottom dollar, if men had to carry babies, there would be morning after pill coin machines outside every pharmacy, along with while-you-wait abortion services.
It's all about control of women. We all know that

@Yelloworangetomato "Others would counter this by suggesting that the embryos in IVF are at a far earlier developmental stage than many abortions are carried out"
Ah see, I do think there is a change in what the embryo/foetus "is" as it develops. I don't think it is absolutely nothing right up to birth. I think it starts out as being very little more than nothing, and slowly becomes something inside the liminal space that is the mother's body. But that's NOT what most American pro-lifers think. If life begins at conception, then they would be accusing Elon Musk of mass murder rather than accepting his money and lionising him. And all of the "pro-life" arguments against the democrats would apply equally to Trump. But they aren't, which makes it a lot harder to take their arguments as motivated by anything else than a desire to control/punish women for sex. I don't include you in this because even though we disagree, your position seems pretty consistent.

Can I ask whether you would make an exception for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest? Should a child who has been impregnanted by her abusive father be made to carry the child to term and give birth?

And, as I always ask as a follow up to this, how do we determine whether it was rape or incest? I think we all know women are often not believed, with some women being believed more than others. Are we going to have panels making this determination?

I assume that you are an orthodox Christian? Can I ask how many unwanted children you have adopted?

Most people do want their own biological children and IVF is a way to achieve this for infertile couples. Adoption nowadays can mean adopting an older child who has often had a difficult start in life either due to disabilities, behavioural difficulties and/or parents who were unable to cope. It is not an easy choice and it requires dedication, compassion and endless patience. I greatly admire people that do this but it is not a solution for everyone who is experiencing infertility.

I think that if someone over the age of consent has sex with someone under the age of consent, it is considered to be statutory rape regardless of whether the underaged girl consented or not.

Children should not be forced to carry pregnancies to term full stop.

States have different ages of consent, so in some 16 would be fine.

But aside from that, what about all the other women, the ones who say they've been raped? How do people who support exceptions for rape and incest propose we determine that? I can't see a world where all women are taken at their word, particularly in a post-Roe landscape.

The cases of which you speak are vanishingly small. And it's not contradictory at all to be in favour of the death penalty but not abortion as one is killing innocent baby/embryo and one is someone (usually a man) who has committed terrible crimes often against innocent women. I'm not getting into debate as have to go to work but since the death penalty was abolished in uk hundreds of innocent women (and children and men) have been murdered by criminals who have been released after sentenced for murder. So I'm on the fence as value innocent women and children more than murderous men.

Are you ok with innocent men being executed?

Isn't the Christian position 'thou shalt not kill'? Surely that applies to everyone, even murderers.

What is contradictory about the majority of right wing anti-abortion zealots is that they care more about the unborn foetus than the live children that these unwanted pregnancies produce.

One of my favourite quotes is from comedian George Carlin:

“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
― George Carlin

How do you feel about the impact abortion bans have had on the women in Poland and the state of Georgia who have died? How many women dying is too many for you?

I’m actually intrigued to watch history in action- we are watching it stumble (in a very orchestrated way) towards a fascist dictatorship and it’s going to be interesting watching it play out.

I don't think anyone answered my question so just posting it again in the hope they do...

A question to any Trump supporters on the thread.

If Donald Trump hadn't ever been found guilty of a crime, but Kamala Harris had been found guilty of 34 felony crimes... are you honestly saying you wouldn't say she should be banned from running for president? That you wouldn't scoff at the idea someone guilty of 34 felony crimes is standing to become the leader of one of the most powerful countries on earth?

@Menopausalsourpuss

It is a Christian viewpoint, orthodox Christians believe life begins at birth and is a gift from God. I am not imposing that view on anyone but its what I believe. You don't have to agree of course.

Yet you're "on the fence" about the death penalty? So believe that people have the right to take a life in some circumstances, thereby giving themself a power you simultaneously say should only be in god's hands?

That doesn't make sense at all...

YANBU

He's said he aspires to be like Hitler. Anyone who supports him or thinks he a reasonable choice needs some sort of intervention.

www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-john-kelly-said-about-trumps-praise-of-hitler-and-fascist-tendencies

I am not a Trump supporter, but I think the answer is "Yes", but not specifically because they are Trump supporters.

The fact is, we are all inclined to overlook the flaws of politicians whose politics reflect our own. Bill Clinton is a weapons-grade sleaze-bucket and his wife enabled his sleazy behaviour, but you will rarely hear left-leaning people criticising either of them for it.

Before the 2019 General Election, a survey was carried out where Conservative and Labour supporters were told of a (made up) news story that was about to break about the sleazy and dishonest actions of a party leader.

The allegations were pretty horrible, but just short of illegal. Half of the participants were told the miscreant was Boris Johnson and the other half that it was Jeremy Corbyn. The not-surprising result was that Labour supporters thought Boris Johnson should resign straight away and Conservative supporters thought the same about Jeremy Corbyn. Both groups were inclined to be more lenient towards their own party's leader.

I hope this helps to answer you question.

There was also a famous study in America a while back where they had a photo of protesters outside a building and had people assess whether the protesters were blocking the entrance or protesting in a reasonable way. But half were told the building was an abortion clinic and half were told it was a military recruitment office. People's opinions again varied a lot depending on their views on abortion and the military.
But what is happening now is like an extreme version of that, that is so exaggerated it's completely distorted. So you aren't getting two people judging a picture SLIGHTLY differently. They won't even agree the picture is real. And I think that blindness does affects Republican's/Trump voters more (while purity spirals and circular firing squad are more a left wing thing).

One of Trump's biggest cheerleaders

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-s-secret-conversations-with-vladimir-putin/ar-AA1sSO1O

Neither of them are a good choice so I really feel for Americans. Obviously Kamala is a slightly better option but it is only very slight.

I saw this on Twitter and thought it was a brilliant summation of the problem with Harris where otherwise it's hard to put into words how bad a choice she is.

"Kamala Harris is so catastrophically bad at answering basic, predictable questions that people endorsing her have, I believe, been left without a plausible explanation for their support. If you vote for Harris, you are tacitly accepting some form of extra-constitutional rule in which we are not even entitled to know who is actually making “presidential” decisions on our behalf. Yes, that was already true under Biden, but if you trusted CNN, MSNBC and the NYT, maybe just maybe you didn’t know how out of touch President Biden was until the debate with Trump.

I’m open to the possibility I’ve failed to escape my own filter-bubble and have somehow missed a credible argument for Harris, but someone will need to make the case. I don’t want to hear about the horrors of Trump, or Biden administration miracles. I want to hear an argument for supporting Harris herself, specifically—one that is based on her capacity and not dependent on immutable characteristics.

If that case can’t be made, then at the very least, Democrats should be ready to burn their party to the ground for sticking them with such a weak candidate in an election that most on both sides believe to be profoundly important for the nation."

She is a far better candidate, she is normal, respects law and order, would congratulate Trump if he wins, would not call on her supporters to march on the Whitehouse or say the election was stolen, would support NATO, Ukraine & back freedom of choice for women

Biden called Trump and empathised with Trump when he was shot, had it been Biden who had been injured, Trump would have laughed at him and called for the would be assassin to be given shooting lessons.

Trump backs Putin, who has now put NK troops in Europe, fighting the currently western backed Ukrainians.....

Madness anyone can possibly say Harris is only very slightly better than Trump....

@scatterolight I've listened to Harris many many times and she is brilliant, its shame you cannot make up your own mind and rely on a random on X instead.