Donald Trump and Abortion

[JonC]

I see that DeSantis has come out strong in criticizing DT for this interview. He is making the same argument that several have already made here.

He says DT is going sell out pro-life Christians in an attempt to win democrats. DT is starting to sound like a RINO.

This issue might actually move the polls a little.

peace to you

It's just business. Cater to the largest consumer.

 

[KenH]

DT is starting to sound like a RINO.

Concerning "RINOs", I wonder how many in the New Right Populist/MAGA movement understand that if the people they pejoratively refer to as "RINOs" don't vote for their brand of Republican candidates, then their brand of Republican candidates have very little chance of winning in a competitive election; they would only have a great chance of winning in elections where the majority of the voters are New Right Populist/MAGA-type voters.

 

[Scarlett O.]

People see what they want to see.

The first comment:
My father showed me the clip, highlighted by blaze TV no less, where Trump said to negotiate with the left on abortion. Now, having read this, and knowing how he exposed the swamp (which is why they've gone rabid), I see the plan. Get them to the table, make them admit to what they really want, and show the world.

The world already knows what Democrats want. They want dead babies at will and on demand. It's what they've wanted for decades.

To me, abortion at 2 months or at birth is equally wrong. To "negotiate" a happy medium is ungodly. There is no agreement as to when abortion is preferable.

Here is what I see: Trump is wrong here.

 

[canadyjd]

Concerning "RINOs", I wonder how many in the New Right Populist/MAGA movement understand that if the people they pejoratively refer to as "RINOs" don't vote for their brand of Republican candidates, then their brand of Republican candidates have very little chance of winning in a competitive election; they would only have a great chance of winning in elections where the majority of the voters are New Right Populist/MAGA-type voters.

I get that, but don’t necessarily agree. I believe voters want people with clear convictions. DT was clear in 2016 on a lot of issues like the border, like foreign trade, like unending wars, like abortion.

Conservatives, imo, feel betrayed; Liberals do as well; when candidates don’t do what they promised.

I’ve mentioned this before, but I think it’s a good example. The repubs in house and Senate voted dozens of times to repeal Obama care when Obama was POTUS, knowing he would veto the bill.

When DT win in 2016, he wanted to repeal Obama care. The repubs in house and senate refused to bring up any of the same bills that had passed just months earlier. Why?

IMO, they deceived conservatives by pretending to oppose Obama care, when they really supported it.

The same with McCain and Graham on the immigration issue. The same with tax payer funded abortion.

A lot of conservatives feel betrayed and will not vote for people they do not trust (RINO’s))

The reality is, it is the repub base that are RINOs, because the elites repubs do not share their values and beliefs.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

The reality is, it is the repub base that are RINOs

Do you think that the New Right Populists/MAGA folks should leave the GOP and start their own party?

 

[KenH]

There is no agreement as to when abortion is preferable.

Even if the mother's life is in danger?

 

[KenH]

They want dead babies at will and on demand.

Sounds like the equivalent of accusing the Republicans that they want old people dead by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.

 

[JonC]

Sounds like the equivalent of accusing the Republicans that they want old people dead by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare.

There is a difference. The GOP has never suggested wanting people dead by getting rid of social security. The party has also not attempted to end social security.

But the DNC has supported and campaigned for abortion at will and on demand for a long time. They are today.

 

[KenH]

There is a difference. The GOP has never suggested wanting people dead by getting rid of social security. The party has also not attempted to end social security.

But the DNC has supported and campaigned for abortion at will and on demand for a long time. They are today.

Do you consider being against government banning an action to be equivalent to promoting that action?

 

[JonC]

Do you consider being against government banning an action to be equivalent to promoting that action?

If you are asking if I believe the Democrat platform to "codify the right to abortion" is the same as supporting the action, then yes.

I also believe the GOP official platform supports abortion (just ending at an earlier point in life).

 

[Wingman68]

Let’s not forget how we made ANY progress on abortion……..perhaps you’ll recall the Supreme Court picks………..or maybe you just can’t wait to pile on……..



Donald Trump at a campaign event in Manchester, N.H.
May 17, 2023, 12:37 PM EDT
By Sahil Kapur


WASHINGTON — Donald Trump took credit Wednesday for the elimination of Roe v. Wade, embracing his role in selecting the Supreme Court justices who were instrumental in ending the half-century precedent that protected abortion rights nationwide.

“After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the ‘shock’ of everyone,” Trump, the former president and front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, said on his social media platform.


Trump said his actions have “put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position” against proponents of abortion rights, giving himself credit for the various bans that are being advanced by conservatives across the country. More than a dozen states have enacted abortion limits since Roe was overturned last summer.

“Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing,” Trump added.

 

[KenH]

If you are asking if I believe the Democrat platform to "codify the right to abortion" is the same as supporting the action, then yes.

I disagree(I know, I know, not shocking since I am a minarchist).

For example, I am totally opposed to sexual relations outside of marriage(which also leads to a lot of the abortions that take place), but, as a minarchist, I do not advocate that government ban sexual relations outside of marriage. Therefore, I do not agree that not wanting government to ban all abortions, or any abortions at all, is equivalent to supporting abortions taking place(and that is without getting into the issue of "when does life begin" or the issue of "when does the body have a soul" or "is abortion okay before the body has a soul - is the soul present when there is no more than the sperm and the egg united or is it later?)

Also, even though I wanted to see Roe overturned, I was disappointed(but not surprised) that the Supreme Court did not rule, as they should have, that Roe needed to be overturned because the U.S. Constitution gives no power to the federal government to be involved in the abortion issue. Now, I know they would not want to do so(if they even considered the proper basis for overturning Roe) because they would not want to open the floodgates to all of the cases that would arise about the 90% of stuff that the federal government is nowadays involving itself in that there is no constitutional warrant for it to be involved in.

Now I know I risk being bashed about in this thread because I look at this issue through the lens of how much power government should have and how extensive should be the size, scope, and reach of government, instead of just going along with the "abortion should be totally banned" idea regardless of the debate over government power.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Even if the mother's life is in danger?

The only reason her life might in harm's way is via an ectopic pregnancy and those are already terminated. Everyone understands that.

What I said was nothing about that or even rape. What I said was that I do not believe in Trump and Democrats sitting down to tête-à-tête and compromising as to a timeline of appropriateness to commit abortion.

For him to say that he is going do this to get them to "love him" is asinine.

 

[KenH]

The only reason her life might in harm's way is via an ectopic pregnancy

From what I have read there are more situations than that, but I am not going to argue over this or that or the other medical procedure, as my area of interest in over the size, reach, and scope of government power.

 

[JonC]

I disagree(I know, I know, not shocking since I am a minarchist).

For example, I am totally opposed to sexual relations outside of marriage(which also leads to a lot of the abortions that take place), but, as a minarchist, I do not advocate that government ban sexual relations outside of marriage. Therefore, I do not agree that not wanting government to ban all abortions, or any abortions at all, is equivalent to supporting abortions taking place(and that is without getting into the issue of "when does life begin" or the issue of "when does the body have a soul" or "is abortion okay before the body has a soul - is the soul present when there is no more than the sperm and the egg united or is it later?)

Also, even though I wanted to see Roe overturned, I was disappointed(but not surprised) that the Supreme Court did not rule, as they should have, that Roe needed to be overturned because the U.S. Constitution gives no power to the federal government to be involved in the abortion issue. Now, I know they would not want to do so(if they even considered the proper basis for overturning Roe) because they would not want to open the floodgates to all of the cases that would arise about the 90% of stuff that the federal government is nowadays involving itself in that there is no constitutional warrant for it to be involved in.

Now I know I risk being bashed about in this thread because I look at this issue through the lens of how much power government should have and how extensive should be the size, scope, and reach of government, instead of just going along with the "abortion should be totally banned" idea regardless of the debate over government power.

There are differences.

One is I am talking about human life and you are talking about marriage. I believe in a minimal federal government. BUT one role of the federal government is protect the life of its citizens - especially those unable to protect themselves.

I cannot say that child rape should be illegal while saying governments have no right to make child murder illegal.

Now, I understand that there are instances where the life of a mother is in danger. To my knowledge there isn't a significant voice saying the child should be born and the mother allowed to die. So that is not a legitimate argument.

When it comes to the DNC they are an evil. But the GOP is just as bad (the GOP itself isn't anti-abortion but restrictive-abortion.....which is still murdering children). Some states are more restrictive than others.

 

[KenH]

you are talking about marriage.

No, I am talking about the size, scope, and reach of government.

BUT one role of the federal government is protect the life of its citizens

The federal government should be protecting only from foreign powers.

To my knowledge there isn't a significant voice saying the child should be born and the mother allowed to die. So that is not a legitimate argument.

If a state's constitution gives its state government the power to regulate abortion, then I think they need to also empanel a board that cases can be brought to to decide when a pregnancy can be terminated. Doctors should not be having to decide whether they can terminate a pregnancy while worrying about a prosecutor charging them with a crime.

When it comes to the DNC they are an evil.

The DNC is evil. The RNC is evil. I am evil. You are evil. We are ALL evil.

Romans 3:9-18 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written,

There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth,
There is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
There is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre;
With their tongues they have used deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

 

[Salty]

At least now - the States/Commonwealths are able to legally restrict abortion!
BECAUSE we had SCOUS justices - who followed the Constitution!

and YES - it was Trump who appointed those three individuals with the Assistance of the (Republican) US Senators!.
Here are the votes:

54-45----- Gorsuch
50-48----- Kavanaugh
52-48----- Barrett

and yes a very few Dems did vote for Trump nominees

 

[KenH]

we had SCOUS justices - who followed the Constitution!

No, they didn't. If they had, they would have overturned Roe on the grounds that there is no constitutional warrant for the federal government to be involved in the abortion issue.

 

[KenH]

At least now - the States/Commonwealths are able to legally restrict abortion!

Do you know of any states that restrict the use of in vitro fertilization, as well as banning abortions? Is not implanting ALL of the results of this procedure to be considered as abortions?

 

[JonC]

No, I am talking about the size, scope, and reach of government.



The federal government should be protecting only from foreign powers.

Here I disagree.

If California should decide child molestation is fine and the federal government allows it then the federal government is not doing its job.

BUT even here you have to admit that the DNC, by vowing to reinstate Roe vs Wade (which removed abortion from a state issue and mandated states allow abortion) is more government overreach than you'd allow.