He’s not Catholic 

And this is why us traditional Catholic red blooded guys consider him a fαɢɢօt.

Agreed.

Only a fαɢɢօt believes you ever have to murder a baby "for the life of the mother". That's total BS. Made up by the devils who brought you abortion. The ѕуηαgσgυє of satan is behind it (who is quite involved in the abortion industry, including as "doctors" a.k.a. murderers, I might point out)

As for rape, I sympathize with the victims, but killing the baby is NOT the answer. That is not justice; that is not right. The BABY didn't get to choose the circuмstances of his conception.

Abortion IS murder. Murder of a BABY. There are NO EXCEPTIONS where it would not be a grave sin, completely immoral.

Here's exactly what he said (beginning @9:13 of "Trump FUMBLES on Abortion):

There would be no abortions or almost no abortions if everyone was having sex within marriage. Because that means that all sex would be with a lifelong, long-term partner. All children would be planned. I mean, the only time you get an abortion is if it is a form of birth control, if you didn't want kids necessarily, or maybe if the life of the mother were threatened or in the case of a rape. But there would be far fewer.

He doesn't realize the vast majority of child-killing occurring today is already done as "a form of birth control"! "[T]here would [not] be far fewer" abortions! He's a grifter.

He reminds me of another agent provocateur, Milo Y.  I think they pose as Catholics only to cover up their degeneracy.

Milo and some on CI have claimed or at the very least inferred that Fuentes is a fed.  My response: Produce a single primary source -- payroll, badge number, 1099, sealed indictment, affidavit connecting him to federal employment or federal payroll.  If you can't retract.

Docuмent one ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ act, one partner, one DM -- hell, one suggestive DM-- and the label sticks. Bring the receipt or retract.

Throwing the label for sport is the same catty gossipy reflex leftists use when they call conservatives racist.  The name calling is like a middle school girl passing notes in homeroom, not a man dealing in facts.

He has made statements thst he's not heterosɛҳuąƖ until he's married or is asɛҳuąƖ, whatever the hell that means really, seems he's either a closet weirdo or very confused sɛҳuąƖly At his age, there should be no doubt about open expression of a desire for the opposite sex ( or not) and your intention to marry or go into religious life, IF you are indeed Catholic.

This kid plays too many games skirting the issue, which believes most straight, normal men to believe he's a little lite in the loafers. Not too mention he comes of as a snotty, arrogant little devious p.

I think you should find someone else with a little more manly traits to become a fanboy of, not this little deceptive twit.

Agreed.

Only a fαɢɢօt believes you ever have to murder a baby "for the life of the mother". That's total BS. Made up by the devils who brought you abortion. The ѕуηαgσgυє of satan is behind it (who is quite involved in the abortion industry, including as "doctors" a.k.a. murderers, I might point out)

As for rape, I sympathize with the victims, but killing the baby is NOT the answer. That is not justice; that is not right. The BABY didn't get to choose the circuмstances of his conception.

Abortion IS murder. Murder of a BABY. There are NO EXCEPTIONS where it would not be a grave sin, completely immoral.

It's the willfull murder of an unborn child, I would say "innocent" but for Original Sin, therefore not sinless.
There has only been One innocent and sinless Person Who was murdered in history and He WILLINGLY gave His own life up for others. He made the Choice.

The babykillers always gaslight over the word Choice for " terminating" ( lovely word) a pregnancy while the victim of this heinous act never, never has a CHOICE in the matter.

Plenty of " married" women out there killing their own children, usually either for their careers, financial issues or not reproducing because of an " abusive" spouse. Getting married in an judaized society in no way saves the innocents from being slaughtered.

Agreed, but what is your point?  You don't need to speak for Fuentes.  He speaks for himself.  (As an aside, there are 5 words which I wish he didn't use.  His style can sometimes make him his own worst enemy.  That said, I don't know of any time whatsoever that he has actually taken the Lord's name in vain, not even a G..d....If you can docuмent one such instance be my guest.)

What I stated earlier in response to the 29 second video clip Geremia took it upon himself to post on Jewtube -- which at this time has a grand total of 33 views -- obviously bears repeating.  (As another aside, you may wish to check out his mixed site: (14908) Geremia08 - YouTube.  Some of his posts are quite commendable.)

No, Fuentes is NOT giving a blanket allowance for abortion “for the life of the mother” or in “rape.”
Listen carefully.  He is actually saying two different things:

• Hypothetical – If marital-sex norms were universally observed, virtually every abortion would be a de-facto contraceptive act.
• Caveat – Maybe the only exceptions that would still occur would be life-of-mother or rape cases.

That is clearly not the same as saying: “I, Nick Fuentes, endorse abortions in these cases.”

He is simply acknowledging that people might still seek those two exceptions even in his ideal society. He never says the killing is permissible. What he does say is that such abortions would still exist after his marital-sex reformation, which is a factual claim rather than a moral endorsement.