Trump says abortion should be decided by the states, 'will of the people'
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 8 months ago • 214 commentsBy: Paul SteinhauserAnders Hagstrom (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former President Donald Trump on Monday announced his position on whether abortion should be banned, following months of not taking a stance on the combustible and crucial issue in his 2024 rematch with President Biden.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee took to his social media platform on Sunday night to say that he would issue a statement on "abortion and abortion rights." In video posted Monday morning, Trump explicitly affirmed his support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and he emphasized his support for states determining their own laws for abortion so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
"The states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land - in this case, the law of the state," Trump said. Many states will be different. Many states will have a different number of weeks…at the end of the day it is all about the will of the people."
The former president told reporters last week at a campaign stop in Michigan that he would make a statement in the coming week, after he was asked about his home state of Florida's controversial six-week abortion ban, which will soon be going into effect.
Former President Donald Trump at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on April 2, 2024, teased he would make an abortion announcement in the coming days.(Fox News - Paul Steinhauser)
Trump reiterated that he was proud of the role he played in overturning Roe v. Wade, saying legal scholars on "both sides" had been in favor of the move.
"The Republican Party should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers, fathers and their beautiful babies. IVF is an important part of that," Trump said.
The former president added on Sunday night that "great love and compassion must be shown when even thinking about the subject of LIFE, but at the same time we must use common sense in realizing that we have an obligation to the salvation of our Nation, which is currently in serious DECLINE, TO WIN ELECTIONS, without which we will have nothing other than failure, death, and destruction."
The blockbuster move nearly two years by the Supreme Court's conservative majority to overturn the landmark nearly half-century-old Roe v. Wade ruling, which had allowed for legalized abortions nationwide, moved the divisive issue back to the states.
And it's forced Republicans to play plenty of defense in elections across the country, as a party that's nearly entirely "pro-life" has had to deal with an electorate where a majority of Americans support at least some form of abortion access.
In the wake of the Supreme Court move, Republican-dominated states have implemented a new wave of restrictions on abortion, including Florida's six-week ban.
As Democrats target Trump and other Republicans over the divisive issue, the former president has tried to thread the needle on abortion.
He regularly takes credit on the campaign trail for appointing the Supreme Court associate who overturned Roe v. Wade and touts that he's the "most pro-life president in American history."
But he has also repeatedly criticized fellow Republicans for taking a hard-line stance on the issue, blaming candidates who did not allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant person is at risk for GOP's setbacks in the 2022 midterm elections.
"A lot of politicians who are pro-life do not know how to discuss this topic and they lose their election. We had a lot of election losses because of this, because they didn't know to discuss it. They had no idea," he said last year at a leadership summit of the Concerned Women of America.
For over a year, Trump has declined to spell out when in a pregnancy he would push to ban abortions.
Trump recently suggested in a WABC radio interview that he was considering a 15-wee ban, saying "the number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I'm thinking in terms of that."
"It'll come out to something that's very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at," he emphasized.
But he's also said multiple times that rather than implementing a federal ban, the issue should stay in the states.
"Everybody agrees — you've heard this for years — all the legal scholars on both sides agree: It's a state issue. It shouldn't be a federal issue, it's a state issue," Trump said.
And Trump has also said that if elected he would "come together with all groups" to negotiate something that would "make both sides happy."
But anything less than a total ban would likely anger anti-abortion hardliners in his own party. And any type of ban would also infuriate many in the abortion rights movement.
Polling has consistently shown that most Americans believe abortion should be legal through the initial stages of pregnancy.
And a recent Fox News poll found that in just the past year, support for a 15-week ban dropped by 12 points, with 54 percent of voters now opposed.
Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in New Hampshire.
Tags
Who is online
228 visitors
Trump leaves it to the voters.
Abortion is now a non-issue for the Trump campaign.
Don't you wish it was that easy Vic.? Reminds me of another Trump magic trick, you know it, the one where he just thought about making a Top Secret Document declassified and wah la, one of our Nations most highly guarded Top Secret Secrets is now a piece of toilet paper in a Mar a Largo back bathroom...
So today everything Trump says is a lie and tomorrow everything he says is the truth. Hard to keep up.
[deleted][✘]
[removed][✘]
Close...everything Trump says is a lie and he will change what he says tomorrow after he forgot what he said today.
Even if you want to follow what Trump says, he says it is up to the "people" not the white, male, older republican lawmakers that are actually making the laws. Bring it up to a vote in every state.
That were voted in by the people and can be voted out by the people.
Yet every time abortion is brought up to the vote, the ban has failed miserably. So how does that work with your claim?
What is untrue about my claim?
Maybe people are not one issue voters. If the abortion issue is important enough to people they will vote the opponents of it out and replace them with people that are for it.
Many states have ways to bring issues up on the next vote. That is fine
it used to be that easy, but, some fools thought it would be a swell idea to put some 'non' politician in the office of POTUS, and this clown had many a fault, but he claimed to be not a politician. So the mental midget alleged inventor of each and every widget, that claimed to have slept with every girl, even Giget, cause the all let em grab em buy the pussy, was this claim from some arrogant asz wussy partially insane inn his membrane of webb, asz he grabbed another young woman named Deb, cause "she wanted him to" Deb never said. For after this cloown escalator rhode not by a scholar down, like he pushed US. Cause know longer can the typical handover of awesome power be expected, asz Trump fed air to the infected, and oh have we ever been since inundated and misdirected, all from a clown we all knew and expected, yet doubtful too many thought he'd get this far, and certainly never elected, asz it was a blatantt FCK U, and, your friends and family too, because i am a a parasitic pariah, with a unholy desire, to inappropriately grab Mariah, and like a 6 pack carry on till both regreta Fleets, like an Enema gone wild, wood be that f Donald Trumo pseudo man child, asz he has changed this country for the far far worse, like a curse, on a cruise ship about to sink, sink in N think
about another choice , with an even , sane, non judgmental nor A vindictive FREAK
By voting him in. And then voting him out because a guy came and said (from his basement)" I aint the other guy and I will be a centrist and bring the country together". And now he may or may not be voted out because he is a lying sack of shit with the mental capacity of..........a lying sack of shit.
It has to pass through Trumps digestive system before it is ready for consumption by his followers
“Yet every time abortion is brought up to the vote, the ban has failed miserably.”
Even in traditionally red states. If ever there was an issue that requires federal regulation, this is it as it goes directly to personal freedom. A founding principle.
To cite ‘states rights’ is reminiscent of the darkest period in our history and is not leadership, not courageous, and not relevant…but rather pandering, weak, and ignorant.
Defecting away from the comment I see.
I think that the comment was defective enough.
Yes, except the left determines when he is telling the truth or lying based solely on how it will help them. Like the dictator on day one comment that was taken out of context and promoted by the left as trump telling the truth.
I think it requires no regulation whatsoever. A definition of when a "thing" becomes a "person" would be helpful, though. Even then it should be between the woman and her doctor.
No, accept the 'right' determines when he is telling the 'truth', or lying based solely on how it will help them.
How does on Day 1 change the context of him stating he WILL be a DICTATOR ?
Remember, citing states rights can go all the way back to the civil war where some states wanted the right to own slaves. Forced pregnancies are moving back into that direction when they force rape and incest victims to bear their assaulter's children.
“…except the left determines when he is telling the truth…”
Is it not incumbent upon all of us to determine his veracity?
Of course there are those on both sides who have an agenda to push. Bottom line? No one with any concern for the future of our country can afford to pay him any credence much less garner one’s support.
Hear his words. Ignore his acolytes. Vote.
Trump has shown no respect for the Constitution or the laws except where he benefits from the same. Otherwise, the Constitution is as good as toilet paper to him.
The post you responded to:
Your reply:
I am not sure how you leaped from one to the next, so I added my twisted point of view:
Trump speaks in garbled word-garbage. It sounds like English and he generally starts in a manner like he is going somewhere, but often it is just meandering babble. My sole point in commenting was to poke fun at this tendency of his.
The left would lead you to believe it is more than just the first day. Many presidents have used executive orders on the first day, this will be no different but the left would have you believe it is the end of democracy.
NO it doesn't, it's a state issue, why can't Democrats get that through their heads?
So you are fine with America being run by a dictator for even 1 single day? No "American" should allow that for 1 second, let alone 1 day.
During that 1 day, a dictator could rescind the Constitution, remember most dictators do not consider themselves dictators, they like to call themselves by other titles.
Kim Jong Un is not a dictator, he is simply their Supreme Leader. Putin (whom Trump adores and worships) is "President" of Russia. See, no dictators.
'The left would lead you to believe it is more than just the first day'
That's all it takes
FFS
It is called using executive orders and is done by every president.
No, actually he couldn't rescind the Constitution. It is that type of Bullshit hyperbole the dems (and reps) try to sell to make people afraid of the other side.
That certainly describes the former 'president' and his cult.
You got that right! Never fails.
If they did they would have to admit it is not the end of democracy if the states can decide.
The biggest problem is if people were not dumb enough to buy into it the parties would probably stop doing it.
Who's doing that? Abortions are still legal in all states, albeit with a few common sense restrictions.
That is a strawman. Nobody has ever meant that everything Trump says is a lie (except you in this case); we often state (express) to mean that Trump is a brazen liar, that is, for him lying is a life-long form of a curse he to date has not been able to properly control. That 'everybody,' in quotes, can attest to, including his fans and supporters.
Since a state can rule on a woman's womb; at some point in the future expect somebody to suggest the womb is a sacred space and accordingly a proper woman ought to put an embryo in it for developing into a human being.
Not at all, everything Trump says is a LIE !
See 1.1.33
Yep, and everything dripping out of Bidens ass is gold
And those EO's must align with the Constitution and within a limited area. EO's are not able to be used anywhere desired. Politics 101.
Executive orders are formal instructions from the President of the United States to federal officials or agencies. They are used to direct the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government and have the effect of law.
As a dictator he could. Why are you going out of your way to support someone so opposed to the American way?
As a dictator he could.
And exactly how would he accomplish that?
Well. . . Fineline. . . you threw quite a 'whopper' (in Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'voice') with that one. Surely, Trump does tell the truth about some thing or things as in for instance: If he is standing inside or outside a courtroom or at home in Mara Lago. You know, the small stuff that does not conflict with his big STUFF!
See unitary executive theory couple it with this former president's presently asking courts to declare and grant the next president and all other presidents IMMUNITY from prosecution upon leaving office. It can be accomplished that way. As you once stated: "Scary stuff!"
No, it really cant
You should prove that any of Trump TRYING to accomplish this or that will not stick. Please proceed. . . . If Donald Trump is known for at least one thing: It's audacity.
Which in some states would mean that the state policy on abortion could keep switching every few years.
And I believe in some state legislatures the lower house is elected every two years ....
how about we make gun rights a state issue?
Because gun rights a specifically protected in the constitution Abortion is not.
Regulation of militias is the state's right!
Sounds good. The former 'president' and the whackjobs on the 'right' want to make the rights to our vaginas a state issue, let's do the same with gun rights.
Sigh.....Yes all rights not specific to the federal government is relegated to the states.
Oh...I know!
Restrictions or bans on vasectomies!
Put it on the ballot in your state, see if the residents support it, I haven't heard of anybody outlawing tubal ligation or hysterectomies, so i'm not sure you have an actual point here.
Oh...viagra bans!
Just wait....tubals will be banned or have to be agreed to by the male spouse. You just can't get a tubal because you want one. Doctors are reluctant to give a woman a tubal if she hasn't had any children even tho she's not supposed to have children due to her health
It should be a non issue; but the left will make it an issue.
Anything short of abortion on demand up till the second before crowning will be considered a restriction by some. Then there will still be those that believe even after crowning the mother should have the right that the baby's head be smashed against a rock if for any reason if she suddenly doesn't want it.
They have to. It is the top issue among democrats. It ranks very low with the rest of America.
Anything short of abortion on demand up till the second before crowning will be considered a restriction by some.
The media has sold exactly that.
Then there will still be those that believe even after crowning the mother should have the right that the baby's head be smashed against a rock if for any reason if she suddenly doesn't want it.
Hard to believe, had we not heard it here.
Who better to make that decision than the mother?
This may come as a shock to some people-- but there are actually some people on the right for whom Abortion is actually an issue!
OMG-- its true. In fact I've known some!
LOL, just keep telling yourself that...
How do you debate someone who says do what you want?
But but but Trump?
Well, maybe there are some folks in the Trump campaign who think its a non-issue. And heck-- they are entitled to their opinion.
But what really counts is whether or not the majority of voters think its a "Non-issue"-- as well as their other concerns.
BTW, just by someone on NT saying that its a non-issue for the Trump campaign doesn't make it so!
"And the former 'president' has also said that if elected he would "come together with all groups" to negotiate something that would "make both sides happy"
The whole point of The United States of America is that everyone has the same rights everywhere!
Trump does not get it...
What rights is he denying people?
Exactly, the supreme court ruled abortion wasn't a right. so no "rights" are being taken away.
In Florida the right to an abortion after six weeks, to start...
It's pretty pathetic that the left cry and whine that "peoples rights will be / are being taken away if Trump becomes POTUS" yet NONE can say exactly what rights.
I mean, it's not like he is censoring social media posts to get a specific narrative out.
So you can't show ANY rights he's taking away.
The Florida abortion issue, well, that on Florida. Not a presidential candidate.
Your problem JB is your confusing a right with something that is legal or has restrictions. Abortion is not a right.
How is that a right?
If the laws controlling reproductive rights are allowed to be different from state to state then so too could be adoptions and marriage rights. This means that a family could be made illegal by a job transfer or soldiers being moved state to state...
But, please do keep saying that women’s reproductive rights are up to the states...
Bodily autonomy is an immutable right!
That's why drugs are legal right? what about Menthol cigarettes? it's their body right? Suicide is illegal, isn't it a right?
Or depleting the US oil reserves to artificially temporarily lower gas prices right before an election; knowing full well he can't resupply them due to the cost. Now with the remaining oil reserves (depleted as they are) thinking about doing it again.
Or defying a US Supreme Court ruling and using US taxpayer money to forgive college debts right before an election?
Or using taxpayer money for get out the vote voter initiatives to pay college students for registering new voters?
Or using the FBI, DOJ, and IRS to go after his political opponents. Including trying to restrict independent candidates from being on the presidential ballot.
Trump has never defended that law.
Those are very different than the laws that control families regarding things like marriage, adoption and childbirth...
Should a marriage or adoption be made illegal or nullified by merely going across state lines are being transferred at work?
If that is your argument, you need to write your congressman and have the US congress pass a law that certifies that abortion on demand is the law of the land. That is how it is done!!!
What is needed is whooping the MAGA!
Then we'll be done with their nonsense...
Now you are deflecting, everything i wrote had to do with Bodily autonomy, adoption or marriage has nothing to do with it.
It won't be that easy this time:
Democrats spar over registration as worries over young and minority voters grow - The Washington Post
They won't be registering thousands as they did in 2020.
Who made it an immutable right?
Pick and choose baby, pick and choose ….
Except by the supreme court !
Article 4 says right to be secure in their persons
but, but, but, geezus....
Might be a stretch to think that applies to abortion
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20the%20people,and%20the%20persons%20or%20things
but how can you be secure in their person if there is something inside their person that they do not want there?
Thanks to Taylor Swift there will probably be millions of young and minority voters REGISTERING AND VOTING DEMOCRAT.
Not really:
President Joe Biden heads into the election year showing alarming weakness among stalwarts of the Democratic base, with Donald Trump leading among Hispanic voters and young people. One in 5 Black voters now say they'll support a third-party candidate in November.
Black, Hispanic and young voters abandon Biden, new poll shows (usatoday.com)
Those are the facts.
Do you really believe Trump has a chance?
Ah that's a nice meme....from "Dumb and dumber.' Jim Carrey would marry that girl and then move on to another.
I think Trump has a 60-40% chance of winning.
[✘] Do you not recall that, just a few years ago, some STATES wouldn't recognize certain marriages?[✘]
Do you mean that Trump's not running in Florida-- that he refuses to be on the ballot?
Or perhaps you think Floridians are not being allowed to vote for President (because that's a national office-- and after all Florida is actually a state-- so they can vote for President...????)
Do you mean that Trump's not running in Florida-- that he refuses to be on the ballot?
because Florida is a state not a country?
Or perhaps you think Floridians are not being allowed to vote for President (because that's a national office-- and after all Florida is actually a state-- so they can't vote for President...????)
Yeah, because that is close to what I said.
Yes really.
I'll let you know when you supply a fact.
why would that have anything to do with Trump's statement on abortion?
Play dumb, but people care about rights.
Two thirds of voters disagree with Trump.
People do care about rights. That's why they are listed in the Constitution.
"It'll come out to something that's very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at," he emphasized.
Actually I think the majority of people agree with that
People care about facts more than disinformation.
70% of Americans are against late term abortion.
Boom!
Except the zero to twenty one weeks limit the gop is pushing for is not late term and nearly all abortions are not and never will be!
Two out of three VOTERS do support legalized abortion in the first two trimesters and later in the event of rape or incest or in order to save the life of the mother. Why Are You Being Dishonest?
KABOOM!
I’m not and I quote:
Emphasis on late term for those who prefer the truth.
The disingenuous nature of pro choice narratives like this will only work on useful idiots. Thinking people won’t buy it.
Pow, zoom …. To the Moon!
Yep-- that's why the Constitution specifically lists the right to an Abortion (but not in Florida-- because there's the so-called "Florida Exclusion Claus" (No relation to Santa Clause !!).
And anyway things are much worse in Florida-- because in addition to everything else they have to put up with that idiot governor-- Ronald DeSanctimonius!*
________________________________
*Rumors to the contrary not withstanding, there's absolutely no truth to the rumor that he's actually Ronald McDonald. (Although isn't it interesting that no one has ever seen Ronald DeSanctimonious and Ronald McDonald in the same place at the same time!!!)
You know how the US works don't you? The States do have their own laws. Not all laws come from the Fed.
Yes, but if you do not yet understand how voting works or just how unpopular Trump's opinion is with voters you will surely find out November 5th!
Seems to be a toss up right now. You know something no one else does?
Yes, Trump is polling as high as he can or will ever go. Biden will rise in the polls...
So your argument is you can tell the future.
OK
I think it is more of a wishful thinking kind of thing.
Past is prolog. It will be like in 2020.
Biden will win by ten million votes...
Yep, until you find out that wishful thinking and reality are often not the same.
So your argument is you can tell the future.
OK
You know how the US works don't you? The States do have their own laws. Not all laws come from the Fed.
But, but, but-- The Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment - Reserving Power for the States
By FindLaw Staff | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last reviewed July 27, 2022
Passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791, the Tenth Amendment is the last in the group of Constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Unlike several of the other early amendments, it is quite brief – only one sentence.
But that one sentence grants state governments all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. However, as broad a grant as this seems, interpretation by the Supreme Court has placed some limits on state power.
What It Says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You think if he did he's admit it publicly-- here on NT?
Yes, this is why we have things like liberally driven gun free zones, safe spaces, eviction moratoriums, etc, etc.
If it's in the Constitution you are correct. Maybe you can point me to "abortion" In the Constitution I can't seem to find it.
Maybe you can point me to the part of the constitution that says abortion ISN'T legal, I can't seem to find it.
And therein lies the rub, doesn't it?
I find it ironic that people have to have a law against doing something they are not inclined to voluntarily do. See 6 below for my view.
Lol. What do you think the Constitution is?
Here's a hint. It's not a list of laws.
Might want to let Goose know.
You can find the Constitution online-- you might want to try googling it.
(OTOH you actually might not want to find it...???)
The SCOTUS said the same thing and people lost their minds. I foresee the same happening with this.
But then again, Trump said something, certain demographics are going to lose their minds regardless.
to be like Trump, and to think like him, one must. 'lose their minds'.
Yet so many people on the left tell everyone what Trump is thinking and going to do if he becomes President all the time here.
Bill Kristol wrote that letting voters decide the issue is "classic authoritarianism." They've gotten so lazy they don't even bother with what words means anymore. It's just buzzword of the moment after buzzword.
He can't dodge the issue that easy
In swing states it will hurt Trump with voters...
Yes. And I think it might hurt him more than people realize in other states as well.
Trump nor Biden do not make laws and has no say in the matter, it's congress, the Supreme Court has given the decision to the States. Why is there all this discussion ?
Presidents and presidential candidates have a lot of say in making laws
Trump is trying to punt to the states to avoid the issue
Trump is punting because it's a state issue, why are you having a hard time with that. Congress isn't going to touch it.
Congress is the representative body for all the states. Abortion has been returned to the states where it failed before Roe versus Wade's landmark decision from the courts, because of past congresses not dealing with the issue. We, some, all of us can remember the 'hodge-podge' of state rulings which were confusing, unworkable, and resulted in women harming, maiming (could not have a child after blotched procedures performed by 'crooked' and underperforming physicians (and abortion scammers), and killing themselves so as not to give birth out of illness, error in timing in life, poverty, or career.
It takes a girl or woman to explain the harm done individually to her when she has the power of the state mandating that sexual intercourse that results in an unwanted pregnancy shall go forward against all that she see as obstacles confronting her doing so.
Because some people just need something to cry over.
It's cute you actually still believe that. On the same note, your argument on this can be said for the state government. Everything you are arguing can be done at the state level.
Do you believe that is the case now?
I don't know what you are thinking Congress as an assembly is being paid to be! The problem you have is this:
On the same note, your argument on this can be said for the state government. Everything you are arguing can be done at the state level.
That is rather broad, leaving me not knowing what you are talking about happening at the state level.
Don't know how. It's in plain english.
LOL! Well, at least I am glad you can clearly understand my English! That is a 'blessing.'
Because this is a discussion site.
Imagine if discussion was verboten on NT-- if we could just seed articles-- with no comments allowed.
How boring that would be.
Spot on
This is the really 'funky' part (if you will allow it to be stated so) about this state-control over abortions: Nobody who is not disposed to getting an abortion in a select state is even going to notice (be impacted by) a change in the law. As they simply were not interested in the first place. There is no major upheaval for them. And, anyone who is disposed to having an abortion will have to "simply" (though not as simple as for the others-they are impacted) going to have to pack up and move or at the least, go outside the state to get an abortion accomplished.
If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Gee that was easy.
.
They are bringing back the defenses of slave holders.
If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave...
If you oppose drunk driving, don't drink and drive...
Such an insipid argument
I made no mention of that at all. I was referencing abortions.
Since you went there. . . you have a category problem: Nobody makes a slave out of the unborn; and unsavory as it is nobody living is harmed by an abortion before entering this world. Slaves, of themselves are not the problem for slaves—it's the disposition of MASTERS that makes slavery what it is; and, drunk drivers get drunk and do maim, injury, and kill (harm) living creatures in this world. Get your proper categories right and try to avoid overlapping them, in this case.
Except for the human life being taken.
That's why this is such a dumb argument. If you are actually trying to persuade someone to support abortion, you have to engage on their terms. People who oppose abortion think the human life inside the mother has value before it's born, or leaves the hospital,or thinks (whatever developmental point you choose where it can no longer be killed). So when your arguement ignores that, it's pointless. Slave owners denied the humanity of their slaves, thus they used the same sort of argument since the slave wasn't harmed (in their mind) either.
A human life that has not yet begun in this world. If there was ever a time to 'take' that life; it is before entering this world. Abortion is an imperfect solution—we know this to be so without argument.
Any way, that dispenses with your slavery and drunk driving arguments. Neither of those two problems in this world are arguments for or against abortion, birth control, or IVF.
Your condescending penchant for mocking others aside. . . . On merits:
Your slave 'argument' lacks relevancy in this. So I will let it alone.
And for your "human life inside the mother has value. . . ." Then, pro-lifers should follow through with demanding that abandoning a child, disowning a child (because they don't model expected behavior, or "fatherless-ness" at birth ought to be illegalities too. But, alas, these three activities are non-issues in the pro-life fight against abortion.
I don’t know about CA, but here in VA abandonment or desertion can be a Class 4 felony.
It's a human life. You don't recognize it as one. Others do. Just like slavery. The slave owner doesn't recognize that the slave is a full human with rights. You say the same of a viable human ready to be born.
If you were an abolitionist in 1855 and a slave owner said to you "if you don't like slavery, don't own one," would you find that a compelling argument? Or would you find it almost insultingly stupid because it fundamentally ignores your objection to slavery?
y, that dispenses with your slavery and drunk driving arguments.
You don't even understand the argument. How can can you dispense with it?
You did not provide a link (but I read the VA law clause anyway), and that is good for Virginia - assuming a legal definition of spouse or father of the child is legally declared (the mother is by definition decided at birth). It does not mention what is charged when such determination of spouse or father is not readily known.
And while lending credence to Virginia's protection for the family, it does not address the country as a whole (the way one would expect pro-lifers to fight to do)!
Additionally, I don't see a provision in the VA law advocating for parents not to put their children 'out' of the house, simply because of whom individually they are 'becoming.'
It's a human life in the making, it is pro-lifers expressed intentions to extend to an embryo all the functioning and administrating privileges, liberties, and "prosperousness" of a human living in our world—except, a fetus does not living in our world. Moreover, once a human life is registered as viable, then it is beset by another set of rules which detail those privileges, liberties, and prospering it will not be fully allowed to have function and administered to it, respectively.
As I stated prior, abortion is an imperfect solution which occurs before coming into our world, but equally imperfect is abandonment, neglect, violence towards ones offspring, and disowning of an offspring and these are issues which occur in our world and on average can even span a lifetime).
Slavery is not a part of this discussion and it reeks of desperation that you compelling demand that it do stick to the walls of this discussion.
Pick and choose Sean :
-Abortion rights unlimited
-Women’s rights in sports limited
-Gun rights limited
-Free speech unlimited, if we disagree with what is being said, then restricted
Get on your high horse to pick and choose. Be a liberal.
Not quite the same thing. It should read thusly:
If you don't like slavery, don't be a slave...
(Thusly???
WTF... thusly???
Is that actually a real word? Anyone here have a Brontosaurus handy???)
too easy, they can't keep their nose out of others business
In Conclusion:
Today's announcement by Donald Trump got immediate reactions from both sides of the issue. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris quickly jumped on it, to portray it as a disingenuous stance. Then the prolife movement's leading spokesman Mike Pence said it was a “slap in the face” to “millions of pro-life Americans” who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. That was followed by the leading pro-life advocacy organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America saying that the organization was “deeply disappointed.”
Blame it on the Republicans who should have known that the media would struggle to take control of the messaging and they did. I'm sorry for the pro-lifers, Donald Trump had to move the GOP away from advocating for life. I want all of you to do some soul searching and you'll see that Trump was right. Besides, when we get to November, who else are you going to vote for?
Then pro-lifers should field a different candid— oops! The presumptive GOP candidate has been decided ahead of time. Better luck next time, " Charlie "
Absolutely true. Trump saw the impact during the 2022 mid-terms and how badly it impacted Republicans. It's a simple political move as those hardline positions are toxic to Republicans for November.
As much as I would like some sort of compromise at a national level, we won't see one any time soon.
Trump threads the needle. . .but the thread itself is trending weak. . .watch for breakage. Darn yarn.
Let us hope that Republican candidates get the message.
Are we to assume that by use of the term "pro-lifers" you are referring to those folks who want to kill anyone who has an abortion?
That it did.
Which it is.
Sucks, don't it?
Not unexpectedly.
How exactly can you twist an, "I'm going to leave it up to the states," stance? He is copping out of the question entirely.
I am sorry that any of the true prolifers ever believed that he was for anything but Trump. Trump has not moved the party away from advocating for life, he has done what any politician looking at the populace in total would have done: He dissembled and kicked the can down the road until after the election. But when one lies as much as he, I doubt he even noticed.
No. Trump has said "something". He did not answer the question or give good reasons for his non-answer. If he were President again and the legislature sent him a bill codifying the status of abortion, would he sign it or would he not?
Biden. He is the only one of the two who has not violated his oath of office and tried to do an end-run around the CotUS.
So, he is using democrat tactics?
GOOD!
No, he is using standard politician tactics. The Republicans and the Democrats alike have kicked the can down the road to avoid taking away cherished vote-getting mechanisms.
Both parties need to be abolished and the whole process from the initial selection of the candidates up through elections needs to occur in a non-partisan manner.
Make every election non-partisan, remove the D and R and I from the ballots and if no one gets 50% have a runoff of the top 2 vote getters.
Republican leadership needs to decide if abortion restrictions are worth loosing elections for
The new republicans have to fully and completely state (along with Trump) what they are prepared to do to aid girls and women who now will be compelled to participate in state "child-mills."
What are state “child-mills”?
Are those like "puppy mills"?
I wonder if Trump has ever paid for an abortion?
He tried to get Marla Maples to have one.
I hope they were aborted. We have more than enough of a Trump spawn problem already.
Exactly, it’s genetics. We need DNA regulations.
Yes, all people are equal but some are more equal than others
At the very least, it might eventually be used as a way to convict the rapists and pedophiles who are rarely if ever reported for their crimes against girls and women.
Probably not-- especially if one was done by one of those so-called "puppy-mills"!!!
You know it! He wanted Marla to abort Tiffany.
Women's rights should be legal in all states - not piecemeal legislated by the religious zealots who might have a voter majority in a community or state to enact laws based on a religious belief.
For most it is not driven by religion. It’s driven by sanctity of life. The pro abortion movement has decided that a babies life is worthless and should be abortable whenever the mother chooses. Simply for no other reason than she wants it aborted.
Which is ghoulish to many of us relating to late term abortion.
How many late term abortions are there? Miniscule numbers.
What are the reasons for late term abortions? Because the fetus is dead or dying usually and to save the life of the woman.
As far as the "sanctity of life"? The woman's life should ALWAYS matter more than the possible life in her body. She is the living human being who is risking her life, her emotional, physical, mental and financial well-being in carrying a pregnancy to term.
The forced birthers have absolutely no risk in a female's pregnancy and should NEVER have a vote on her life decisions - none, nada, zip.
The hubris of the people attempting to play dictator in other people's lives makes them no different than a Hitler, a Stalin, a Saddam Hussein, etc.
No sure that is accurate but let’s say it is. Then Pro Choice folks should have no problem establishing law prohibiting late term abortion without mitigating circumstances like well being of the mother.
Right? I mean the numbers are minuscule right?
I agree with the key words being "the well-being of the mother". Meaning the decision is based solely on the female's well-being determined by her and her doctor without any laws restricting the decision.
Astounding! Religious people praying in the state capitol that God will not permit them to have abortions. . . they supposedly don't want to have anyway. Also, asking God to MAKE the ungodly folks and liberals - make a child/ren they don't want to birth or raise.
Just "unthinkable.,"
Absolutes are the problem here. On both sides. Most reasonable people can accept restrictions with reasonable exceptions such danger to the mothers health.
Hard to understand unrestricted abortion with no limitations.
And this must include mental health. In the US at least one out of every four females have been molested/raped before reaching adulthood (age 25). Many of them will manage to have some kind of sexual relationship during their lifetime that might result in pregnancy. Maybe, the majority desire being a mother, but for the minority that can't cope with parenting a child, there must never be restrictions that force her to endure a pregnancy that might result in the death of whatever mental health she still possesses to cope with life. Females are people with unique personalities, experiences, biology, etc. Females should never be considered livestock to be bred.
There are far too many considerations of why there should be very few limitations on abortion because the woman's life is at stake. We can't walk in another person's shoes and it really is a blessing.
Whether a person can "understand" something does not mean that they should have the power to play dictator in another person's life, does it?
Again, I will re-state, the number of late term abortions are miniscule and usually because the fetus is dead or dying. I had the trauma of having some area religious zealot send me an email with graphic pictures and propaganda about this issue over a decade ago. We used to do business with him. After receiving that email, we found another supplier (which might have been just as guilty as spreading lies but wasn't stupid enough to tell me).
About 10,000 a year.
And this must include mental health.
Who defines what mental health means?
I know who it isn't. Men and women without a medical degree in human biology and psychology.
Source?
Reasons?
And I will re-state that if it is a minuscule problem. No one should have a problem with a late term restriction that accounts for well being of mother or other such circumstances.
I’m sorry you were exposed to such nastiness and extremism but that by itself doesn’t really justify not having reasonable restrictions imo.
What is your version of an abortion law that you would wholeheartedly support that accounts for the well-being of the female?
Thank you. It has been the typical attitude of all of the religious zealots I have known all of my life. Most of them are either "trapped" in unhappy marriages, divorced or never married. In the case of the man sending the email - he was divorced.
It is psychological abuse telling a woman that she is too stupid to make her own decisions.
It is psychological abuse telling a woman that she is being a sinful, immoral creature if she values her own mental and physical well-being if she chooses to save her own life over that of a fetus.
No woman should ever have to endure having men with those kind of attitudes in their life period. This is no different than the attitude of the Ayatollah in Iran that is being labeled an abhorrent being that must be eliminated for the good of the world. There is no reason to fight that attitude in the Middle East if it is going to be legal in the US.
Cognitive dissonance or just plain old hypocrisy or misogyny?
If a living, breathing human breaks into someone's house, should it be legal to shoot them in self-dense or should the legal occupant allow the intruder to kill them?
If a woman rids her own body of a fetus in self-defense of her physical/mental well-being, then she should be charged for murder?
George Tiller, who was assassinated for performing third trimester abortions, once stated that only 800 fetal anomalies were discovered out of 10,000 patients, or 8% of total cases.
21 Compelling Third Trimester Abortion Statistics - HRF (healthresearchfunding.org)
Reasons?
Varied.
21 Compelling Third Trimester Abortion Statistics - HRF (healthresearchfunding.org)
What did we learn about the people with degrees during covid?
A woman merely needs to be stressed to have some doctor sign onto a mental health issue.
umh, that they are not alwayse Fare in height
or
are you attempting to sell si us a cooler argument ?
cause again, you lower yourself without reason than to defy, for you have not the physical makeup to be deciding for women, or is thre something you now wish to reveal ? Cause your women's mental health comment is degrading.
The physical dangers are easily medically evaluated. I’m sure you’re going for the mental health issue. I’m afraid there is no foolproof way to deal with that and will need to trust the persons healthcare professional as well.
It’s not perfect but a law that would require a detailed mental health evaluation would have to do. Late term abortions of convenience only, need to be stopped.
The world has changed since 2009, George Tiller should not be the sole source if this data is to be considered credible and why isn't there government reports on reasons for third trimester abortions?
I prefer to work with recent data. The CDC has a yearly report on abortions. Below is the link to 2021 report. Is there anything in the report that you believe shows the need to have more restrictions on abortions?
and I will cite an easy read article that discusses recent abortion statistics. I don't if this article is in conflict with the CDC report. I don't feel any pressure to justify why women have the right to control what happens to and inside their own body to anyone in the US - the home of the brave and the land of the free.
How about a law that requires a detailed health evaluation for anyone of any age or gender buying a gun in the US?
Where are you getting this information that women are having late term abortions for convenience?
Please, please read the article at the link below on how stress affects the female and the fetus. Both may suffer lifelong mental and health problems.
I found it interesting that a female fetus is more likely to survive than a male fetus if the mother is highly stressed.
Women's lives and health are at stake. This is a matter that should be and remain between the woman and her doctor. There is no reason whatsoever that a female's health is a matter that the public should get to vote on.
more research on maternal/fetal stress.
nicely done
So, the health issue can be anything and there is no restriction in the final trimester.
Now let us discuss such cases.
In 1992, Haskell, who claimed to have performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, detailed his procedure in a paper. To give readers a realistic view of this gruesome procedure, a 1996 congressional record factsheet entitled “ A Closer Look at Partial-Birth Abortions ” reprinted his directions.
According to Haskell:
Oh, you do! Well, if you recall, the CDC lied to us during covid. They didn't know shit.
Is there anything in the report that you believe shows the need to have more restrictions on abortions?
Yep. I'm with the majority of the country on third trimester abortions. Unless there is a REAL reason for it such as the life of the mother, it should not take place at that stage.
I don't feel any pressure to justify why women have the right to control what happens to and inside their own body to anyone in the US - the home of the brave and the land of the free.
I don't understand how something created by two people is controlled by one, but I do know that you do not dictate rights to everyone. People vote on it. We have abortion laws throughout the country with everything from Arizona's very restrictive law all to the six states and Washington, D.C., which do not impose any term restrictions at all. That is the home of the brave and the land of the free.
Unelected justices don't get to enact laws. The people do.
I read it and I still don't get why certain women are so over the top on this subject.
How about a law that requires a detailed health evaluation for anyone, of any age or gender, trying to get a drivers license?
We can do this all day.
None of which are remotely the same thing.
Again, if your position is that they don’t happen, a law forbidding them should be no problem for you.
Such a stupid way of thinking. A true “will of the people” would be women deciding if they should terminate or not terminate their pregnancy. Nobody is forcing women to have an abortion, just like nobody should force women to not have an abortion.