politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS]
Source:
Ace Of Spades
URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525
Published: Apr 1, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 35458
Comments: 253
I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence!Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are
Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind
—Ace
The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed.
Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: SOSO (#16)
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. Returning the issue to the states allows each state to make that determination. If you don't like the decision reached by your state, at least you can move.
Odd. I was waiting for you to say the same thing, TooProAbort.
Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm
The interviewers want a dictator.
The interviewers want their dictator.
The meme of "I'm personally against abortion but believe it should be legal " has been the liberal talking point for at least 20 years. Amounts to: I'm personally against murder but think we need to keep it lawful for others. Trump has just embraced the NARAL platform. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Are you one of those hard shell Baptists? You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County. I think some religions think dancing is sinful too. While you're at it, ban bacon too!
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago. And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm Did I say that moron? But perhaps you are against the centralized power that did away with slavery or gave women the right to vote or establishes reasonable restrictions preventing the abuse of public natural resources or fights our wars. It hard to imagine that you can be any bigger of a dolt. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County. I think some religions think dancing is sinful too. While you're at it, ban bacon too! You've lost it Fred. Better get back on those meds. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Gee, I wonder how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-choice. And again how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-life. His own words "now that I think about it" strongly suggest that he hadn't thought about either position before. But to his credit he is changing. But.......but........I wonder what other positions that he has espoused will change after he really thinks about them? There really is no hope for a Trump dupe. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible.
I am certain that someone at the track can point you in the right direction. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The U.S. Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. They then used the 14th amendment to apply that right to the states. "And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts." It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem?
Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible. Then please have the courage to post my statement. If you can't you lose big time. But you are used to that, aren't you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have." Did you forget already?
That's immoral! Only centralized government is good!
The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago. Do your homework. I even gave you a link which you obviously didn't read. Abortion was perfectly legal in ancient Rome and Greece and in England up to 1803 or so. It wasn't until the mid-;ate 1880s that it wasn't legal in the U.S. As for SCOTUS, it claimed that a fetus was not a person as applied under Amendment 14th and that right of privacy of the women was superior to any right of the fetus thereunder. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Did you forget already? LMAO. It appears that you did, loser. You must be a Trump dupe. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Returning the issue to the states allows each state to make that determination. If you don't like the decision reached by your state, at least you can move. Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it. Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?
Only to you and the voices in your head.
You fail again. Simply post my statement and perhaps this would be the first time you ever win.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment? Who cares? He likely will not be relevant in a few months. But if he is he will likely change his mind.....again......and again......and again. "Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it." I have no inherent problem with either. But effectiveness always comes down to enforcement. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Again? It won't get any less stupid.
Again? It won't get any less stupid. Perhaps but it certainly would prove that you are not lying. Right now you act as a dickless wonder that doesn't have any balls either to defend himself. So if you do not post my statement proving you claim please just slink away and hope nobody else sh*ts on you. Over and out, eunuch. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You sure think about dick a lot.
I never said anything about the legality or illegality of abortions. You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
These latest several positions are consistent with the theory that The Donald never wanted to be the nominee. Just sayin' ...
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used.
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion? Answer: They didn't.
Answer: They didn't. Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president. And by my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did you - or are you seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
Sure it does.
We'll have to agree to disagree. By my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did misterwhite - or is he seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
You can count? Who knew. What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified when he was President?
Document that. You can't because it is likely not true. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. More to your point, which is a valid one, I have tried to find authoritative sources as to what is now called fetal rights were legislated either at the federal or state level in the early 1800s and prior times in colonial America with not much success. So I concede that absent finding such documentation that your position is quite plausible but note the following: In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to enact abortion legislation for women who had reached quickening, but abortion before quickening did not become illegal in Connecticut until 1860. New York, in 1828, adopted legislation that was followed by many states between 1830 and 1850; most of these statutes dealt more severely with abortion after quickening than before. So it seems that whatever fetal rights that may have existed in law in the U.S. were based on the notion of quickening. Further, "These anti-abortion laws were enacted for three basic reasons: a Victorian obsession to discourage illicit sexual conduct; a health concern, because at the time abortions were dangerous; and a newfound interest in protecting prenatal life. By the end of the 1950s, however, a large majority of states had banned all abortion except for instances where the woman's life was in danger." So the evidence that I have be able to find suggests that interest in protecting prenatal life was not prevalent prior to the mid-late 1800s. Another reference states that, "at the turn of the nineteenth century most people in Western Europe and the United States did not believe human life was present until a pregnant woman felt the first fetal movements, a phenomenon referred to as quickening. In the United States and England, abortion was legal in the early 1800s as long as it was performed prior to quickening. During later stages of pregnancy, abortion was a crime, but distinct from other forms of murder and punished less harshly." But for the sake of discussion let's assume that you are correct. Doesn't a state of affairs where there are 50 different legal determinations of what a fetus is and what rights it may have seem absurd to you? At the minimum each state needs to adhere to Federal law as to the constitutional rights of the unborn fetus. A state may go beyond that but cannot diminish the constitutional rights of a fetus. For example, in 2007 SCOTUS upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortion, a form of late term abortion. "In its April 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and, in the process, set a major jurisprudential precedent. The federal law includes no health exception. Moreover, although the law does not include a precise medical definition of what is banned, the Court found the federal law’s definition sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The federal law is currently in effect and the Supreme Court precedent may bring consistency to state laws, which are still important as they allow for state and local law enforcement and, potentially, stiffer penalties. •32 states have enacted bans on “partial-birth” abortions. ◦13 state laws have been specifically blocked by a court and are not in effect. ◦ 19 state laws are in effect; 7 of them remain unchallenged but, because of the broad nature of their language, are presumably unenforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a Nebraska ban. •The definition of what constitutes a “partial-birth” abortion varies from state to state. ◦11 states laws mirror the definition in federal law, with 10 of these laws in effect. ◦ 21 state laws have definitions not patterned after federal law, but only 9 of these laws are in effect. •All 32 state laws include some sort of exception. ◦3 states have bans that include a health exception. ◦1 state includes a broad health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion if necessary to protect against physical or mental impairment of the pregnant woman. ◦ 2 states include a narrow health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion to protect only against bodily harm to the pregnant woman. ◦ 29 states have bans that allow for an exception only when a woman’s life is in danger, with 16 of these bans in effect." IMO this is an unacceptable state of law that does not serve the character of our country well. As things stand what SCOTUS has foisted on us is a disgraceful abdication of judicial duty, as well as logic. RvW was an expedient construct for political reasons. The notion of viability is a totally illogical sham. So I will stand by my position that there were not 50 determinations as to the legal status of an unborn fetus for 200 years and there should not be. Human life is human life no matter where it happens to reside at the moment and the legal protections that life has should not be location dependent. I will go further, whether an unborn fetus is just a thing that can be discarded at will or human life with protected rights should not be at the sole discretion of the pregnant woman. Nor should be at the independent sole discretion of 50 different states. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
Your usual projection.
Comments (59 - 253) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground."
#19. To: TooConservative (#3)
I'm just waiting for Trump to tell us that abortion should be made mandatory.
#20. To: SOSO (#16)
The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.
#21. To: misterwhite (#8)
The interviewers sure do act as though he does.
#22. To: Roscoe (#21)
"The interviewers want a dictator."
#23. To: TooConservative (#0)
#24. To: redleghunter (#23)
#25. To: misterwhite (#18)
"To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground."
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
#27. To: Roscoe (#20)
The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
Are you one of those hard shell Baptists?
#29. To: SOSO (#28)
#30. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, vicomte13, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, All (#1)
Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It...............
#31. To: SOSO (#27)
Did I say that moron?
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Villanova will win it all too. I'm not sure where to make that bet.
#33. To: SOSO (#25)
"There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago."
#34. To: Roscoe (#31)
Did I say that moron?
#35. To: SOSO (#34)
post my statement.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem?
#38. To: Roscoe (#35)
"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have."
#39. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#18)
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution.
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
It appears that you did
#41. To: Roscoe (#40)
#42. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#39)
#43. To: SOSO (#41)
Simply post my statement
#44. To: Roscoe (#43)
Simply post my statement
#45. To: SOSO (#44)
#46. To: SOSO (#37)
"The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago."
#47. To: TooConservative (#0)
The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway?
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
"Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?"
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#49)
"The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used."
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president.
#54. To: Roscoe (#53)
#55. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
By my count, the last five includes Reagan.
#56. To: misterwhite (#46)
You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]