What is Trump’s Abortion Stance?

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Gosh, what’s the title of the thread? 

So you couldn't even figure out THAT much?  Yeash kid, nobody's saying your reading or comprehension skills are awesome but damn i thought you'd get a least THAT much figured out !!   

(sorry, pretty much had to  )  

[User]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Gosh, what’s the title of the thread? 

I am reading what you are arguing, and you are trying to have it both ways dishonestly. 

[Rebound]

49 minutes ago, User said:

I am reading what you are arguing, and you are trying to have it both ways dishonestly. 

Exactly! Because that’s precisely what I’m saying. The man has no solid position on abortion.  
 

Trump flips, and flops, and says one thing, then the opposite, then an aide clarifies, and the spin doctors spin. 

Edited September 2, 2024 by Rebound

[User]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Exactly! Because that’s precisely what I’m saying. The man has no solid position on abortion.  

No, you could have said that if that is what you were saying. You were trying to argue this both ways for your own duplicitous purposes. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, you could have said that if that is what you were saying. You were trying to argue this both ways for your own duplicitous purposes. 

First sentence of the first post: “Since he seems to change his abortion position every day.”

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Rebound said:

First sentence of the first post: “Since he seems to change his abortion position every day.”

But it's not his position that is changing here, it is yours and that is what he is pointing out.

You are trying to make an argument one way and the other way at the same time. That has nothing to do with trump, that has to do with being dishonest. So smarten up and clarify what you're saying. 

[Rebound]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But it's not his position that is changing here, it is yours and that is what he is pointing out.

You are trying to make an argument one way and the other way at the same time. That has nothing to do with trump, that has to do with being dishonest. So smarten up and clarify what you're saying. 

What the F is so complicated here? Trump’s position on abortion keeps changing. And he absolutely cannot be trusted to protect abortion rights, because he happily took credit for overturning Roe v Wade by appointing justices who lied under oath before the U.S. Senate, claiming they would not overturn Roe. So if his appointees are happy to lie about protecting a woman’s right, then he is.  And we know that Trump is an Olympic Gold Medalist Liar.  
 

Most likely, Trump has no personal convictions about abortion, he’s just happy to do whatever the political winds tell him to do.  

[User]

13 hours ago, Rebound said:

First sentence of the first post: “Since he seems to change his abortion position every day.”

That was not the post I responded to... 

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What the F is so complicated here? Trump’s position on abortion keeps changing. And he absolutely cannot be trusted to protect abortion rights, because he happily took credit for overturning Roe v Wade by appointing justices who lied under oath before the U.S. Senate, claiming they would not overturn Roe. So if his appointees are happy to lie about protecting a woman’s right, then he is.  And we know that Trump is an Olympic Gold Medalist Liar.  
 

Most likely, Trump has no personal convictions about abortion, he’s just happy to do whatever the political winds tell him to do.  

No Justice lied under oath, that is such an absurd claim. Not one of them made any such pledge to never overturn Roe. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, User said:

 

No Justice lied under oath, that is such an absurd claim. Not one of them made any such pledge to never overturn Roe. 

 

nor were they. It's !diotic on the face of it suggest otherwise, no justice of any stripe would ever suggest that they have already decided on a case when they haven't heard the evidence. And any justice who did should be immediately thrown out.

Their job is to take a look at the evidence and reach a decision based on the arguments made not make the arguments and reach a decision before the trial starts. Even democratic judges know that's how it's supposed to work  

 

[Rebound]

On 9/2/2024 at 11:34 AM, User said:

That was not the post I responded to... 

No Justice lied under oath, that is such an absurd claim. Not one of them made any such pledge to never overturn Roe. 

 

They all stated that Roe was a settled or established precedent of the court, which had be re-affirmed several times.  

[User]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

They all stated that Roe was a settled or established precedent of the court, which had be re-affirmed several times.  

No, I don't think any of them used terms like "settled", they all used very precise legal terminology to state it was the existing law, but made no promises to never over turn it. 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

They all stated that Roe was a settled or established precedent of the court, which had be re-affirmed several times.  

No, roe was always a contentious interpretation and it hadn't been 'affirmed'  (it had been quoted often enough but that's different). 

The section that deals with this issue and the 14th amendment doesn't speak to abortion obviously.  What the judges in rvw said was that the constitution IMPLIED that there might be protection if you consider the right to privacy. And further they said that the feds would STILL have the right to regulate and that the right wasn't absolute.  And ever since there's been legal arguments over how far those rights do and do not go. 

What the new ruling says is that at the end of the day the ONLY implied rights (vs expressly mentioned ones) are rights which are a part of the history and tradition such that it would implicit in the keeping of 'order and liberty'.  

Marriage for example.  Nothing in the constitution guarantees the right to marriage. But it's such a fundimental 'baked in' thing in our society that it would be considered a right, and trying to ban it would be insanely disruptive. 

There is no actual grand tradition of abortion or the like, much like there's no grand tradition of tonsillectomies. They're just medical procedures. Further considering people have numerous other birth control options at affordable prices it's not an 'upheaval' if they don't have access.  Exceptions are made were it would be, such as the life of the mother being at risk. 

But for sure nothing was 'settled',  it was always a highly questionable interpretation and even where it was accepted it was unclear exactly what it meant. 

Now it's much more clear and the states will decide what they will and won't allow. 

[Nationalist]

On 8/31/2024 at 7:46 PM, herbie said:

No there aren't. It's made up propaganda speak, just like the term pro-life is. Utter BS pretending to claim what isn't is. You fell for it, sucker.

 

Gee...you really are an evil person...aren't ya.

A baby in the womb is conscious at about 3 to 4 months. It is quite alive at that time. Thus killing it after that time is murder.

But hey...evil is as evil does.

And for the record, I believe Trump has said the same. 3 to 4 months.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Gee...you really are an evil person...aren't ya.

A baby in the womb is conscious at about 3 to 4 months. It is quite alive at that time. Thus killing it after that time is murder.

But hey...evil is as evil does.

And for the record, I believe Trump has said the same. 3 to 4 months.

This is a fairly common interpretation. At somewhere around 16 weeks the baby's brain will actually fire up and begin to control bodily functions. I think calling it conscious would probably be an exaggeration, but the computer is on and processing information. We're not just talking about a couple of random neurons firing here and there, it's doing its job.

Considering that the moment that all brain activity stops is usually accepted as the moment of death legally and medically speaking, then presumably it's reasonable to say that the moment that brainwave activity start would be the beginning of human life (vs just a living group of cells). 

Shorten it to first trimester or so just to be on the safe side and you've got what most people would accept as being a very reasonable compromise that is logically and legally defensible.  There will be some who personally feel that sooner or later is when life starts but this would seem to be fairly acceptable to everyone. 

And that's how it is in Canada even without laws. Seems to work, don't see women marching or burning down buildings or erecting 20 ft IUD's in protest. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is a fairly common interpretation. At somewhere around 16 weeks the baby's brain will actually fire up and begin to control bodily functions. I think calling it conscious would probably be an exaggeration, but the computer is on and processing information. We're not just talking about a couple of random neurons firing here and there, it's doing its job.

Considering that the moment that all brain activity stops is usually accepted as the moment of death legally and medically speaking, then presumably it's reasonable to say that the moment that brainwave activity start would be the beginning of human life (vs just a living group of cells). 

Shorten it to first trimester or so just to be on the safe side and you've got what most people would accept as being a very reasonable compromise that is logically and legally defensible.  There will be some who personally feel that sooner or later is when life starts but this would seem to be fairly acceptable to everyone. 

And that's how it is in Canada even without laws. Seems to work, don't see women marching or burning down buildings or erecting 20 ft IUD's in protest. 

I'm surprised the Libbies even argue this. And that a man has no rights concerning the baby, is nonsense too. Without our seed, there is no baby. 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I'm surprised the Libbies even argue this. And that a man has no rights concerning the baby, is nonsense too. Without our seed, there is no baby. 

The left has to argue it because they need all of their supporters to be victims. They need their supporters to believe that somehow it's a violation of their rights if you abort a child just as it enters the birth canal, and that it's not really a child and therefore has no rights. You could literally have a note from god along with diagrams and explanations showing that this wasn't the case and they still would demand it. They're not interested in logic, they're interested in victims

And as for men..... The mere fact that you dare, DARE, to suggest those people who are the root of all evil in the universe and responsible for every ill thing that has ever happened in humanity and whose sole purpose is to repress women and some of whom are even white which makes them Satan themselves and utterly irredeemable, to suggest THOSE people should be allowed to have RIGHTS!!!!  is just proof of your lack of understanding of wokeism in the first place.  Hang your head in shame, Despicable. 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Gee...you really are an evil person...aren't ya.

A baby in the womb is conscious at about 3 to 4 months. It is quite alive at that time. Thus killing it after that time is murder.

But hey...evil is as evil does.

And for the record, I believe Trump has said the same. 3 to 4 months.

Conscious? What do you remember from your third month in the womb?

[Nationalist]

Just now, Rebound said:

Conscious? What do you remember from your third month in the womb?

Nothing. What's that got to do with it?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Conscious? What do you remember from your third month in the womb?

What do you remember from your first day in the hospital after birth?  At least use sane measures for what consciousness might be for god's sake. 

[User]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Conscious? What do you remember from your third month in the womb?

I don't remember anything from my first week of birth either... did you have a point?

[Matthew]

On 9/2/2024 at 10:24 AM, Rebound said:

Trump has no personal convictions about abortion, he’s just happy to do whatever the political winds tell him to do.  

Exactly. Just like literally every policy he tries and fails to talk about. That's why Project 2025 matters. It has little to do with Trump, it's playbook for the right wing bureaucrats who would actually be governing and unlike trump's transparent pandering, it's perfectly clear on what abortion policy will be.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Exactly. Just like literally every policy he tries and fails to talk about. That's why Project 2025 matters. It has little to do with Trump, it's playbook for the right wing bureaucrats who would actually be governing and unlike trump's transparent pandering, it's perfectly clear on what abortion policy will be.

Or, you know, we have the actual party platform... but sure, just ignore all that and go with your silly fear-mongering. The truth is boring. 

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, User said:

Or, you know, we have the actual party platform... but sure, just ignore all that and go with your silly fear-mongering. The truth is boring. 

That's just marketing and lacks detail. The republican party spent much of the last decade ridding itself of conservatives. So the heritage foundation is trying to mobilize lower-level conservatives in bureaucratic positions to achieve conservatives goals, knowing how inept trump and the maga sycophants are at getting actual policy done.

Edited September 4, 2024 by Matthew

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

That's just marketing and lacks detail. The republican party spent much of the last decade ridding itself of conservatives. So the heritage foundation is trying to mobilize lower-level conservatives in bureaucratic positions to achieve conservatives goals, knowing how inept trump and the maga sycophants are at getting actual policy done.

Exactly. Because if Trump is elected, he will need to hire thousands of people and come up with politicos on a thousand things. Project 2025 is the playbook and they’re already vetted over 2,000 MAGA-friendly bureaucrats.  It is 100% what Trump will do if he’s elected, to turn the government into a weapon for Trump to use however he pleases. 

[User]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

That's just marketing and lacks detail. The republican party spent much of the last decade ridding itself of conservatives. So the heritage foundation is trying to mobilize lower-level conservatives in bureaucratic positions to achieve conservatives goals, knowing how inept trump and the maga sycophants are at getting actual policy done.

So, ignore the facts we can see with our own two eyes... and use your liberal left-wing cracker jack box decoder ring instead. 

Got it.