I am pro life and will always root for parenthood and childhood. However, I am comfortable with Trump’s position. It is a national compromise I can live with while I strive to encourage and promote the pro life mentality to people I love and care about.
There is nothing in Trump's position that prohibits pro-life people from working every day to get women to choose life... perhaps the best way to do that is to establish choose life centers next to every abortion mill in the country. If we want women to make the right choice, then we have to make sure that they feel that they really do have a choice. And that means not just discouraging abortion but supporting women and their children after they are born.
AlliGill - you would be amazed at the number of people I know who don't have a clue about our local pro-life clinic (or any pro-life organization for that matter) and the unheralded work they do to help pregnant women and the babies they chose to keep. Unlike Planned Parenthood, who gets all the media attention and our government tax dollars, Pro-Life centers survive on donations and volunteers with little or no recognition for their life-saving work. We could change the world if the media told the truth about abortion and focused on the positive effects Pro-life centers have.
Many men will think this is sort of a radical position, but I think both sides of the abortion debate are unrealistic and dogmatic. The pro-choice Democrats, who want portion legal until birth are just disgusting human beings, there is no excuse for this. And I think most Democrats think that as well. They just won’t leave their tribe. But I also think total abortion bans and heartbeat limits and IVF bans are equally extreme. Why do politicians on the fringes and radical groups on the fringes define our politics? Americans are very obviously in favor of legal abortion with limits. Not the Democrat position not the Republican position, the middle position. The moderates.
So, if you really wanna get to that, I think a logical way to decrease abortions is to really mean that you want to decrease them. Not just an ideological point of view but a practical point of view. So make birth control free. Make the morning after pill free. And do DNA test on babies where the father won’t take responsibility and dock their pay until a child is 18 years old. I know I’ll get a lot of haters on that, but having children involves an egg and a sperm and both adults are responsible for that. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions.
I "liked", and then "unliked" your comment before "liking" it again. The one thing that gives me pause is that I am not at all *comfortable* with Trump's position, but I think in a society that has dug itself so far into the various forms of anti-life mentality, it's probably the best we can hope for for quite a while.
I'm pretty much in your camp. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the defense of life in this day in which we live depends on achieving the political power to advance the pro-life position. The libs are expert at playing the long game, pushing for incremental advances to their positions. Its time for those on the other side to look at a similar approach.
However, and this is a big however, the stakes are so much higher - human life - that it is hard to reconcile the incremental approach with the defense of every human life. If this was such a clear-cut issue, it would be easier to address without this basic conflict.
I think that there is power in words and how you say them - the left is very aware of that. That said, I happen to favor the 15/16 week limit, and that is how the right should talk about it. Ban the word "ban". Abortions should be PERMITTED up until a reasonable time limit and then only PERMITTED in the case of threatening the health of the mother. The word PERMITTED should be utilized every time anyone used the word "ban". My 2 cents.
Abortion at 9 months (or post partum) is a repub myth. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – before 13 weeks of gestation; 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. In 2022, 53% of all abortions were induced in the early weeks with pills. The abortion decision could just be left to women & doctors without govt interference and not much would change
See, there's that thing about words having meaning. "Myth" means something doesn't actually exist. This does, by your admission. The words "not much would change" means that yes, these things occasionally happen, but since we're playing with statistics, it's not meaningful. The problem is that you are talking about people living and dying. In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a total of 625,978 abortions from 46 states and Washington, DC - so, by your admission, approximately 6000 abortions occurred in the final trimester. That's why we need reasonable laws.
And why are they performed in the final trimester? Probably because the fetus has been discovered to be non- viable or there is a major complication threatening the mother's life ( infection, uncontrolled high blood pressure, etc). That's why we need exceptions for the health of the mother.
We already agree on issues regarding the health of the mother. But with 42,000+ abortions performed after the first trimester, we need to wonder about the motivations there. How many are medical versus cosmetic or for convenience. The mantra seems to be "for any reason or no reason" - which I can accept in the first trimester, but beyond that, no.
I mostly agree with you NWCitizen. Abortions in 3rd Trimester are very rare statistically (like less than 1%). Where I may differ is I'm personally glad that Roe v. Wade is back to each State to decide on limit or no-limit. Because even that 1% in 3rd Trimester, IMO, should never be aborted unless life of mother at risk, incest, rape. In year 2023, that 1% represented a little over 10,000 of abortions in USA. I've seen a stillborn baby at 26 weeks (my own son), and the life is fully formed even by this tail-end of 2nd trimester. Yes, it was hyperbole for Trump to bring up infanticide (killing infant after birth). I'm a Trump supporter and I know those words were red meat. Christianity when it took hold pretty much eradicated infanticide. I think pre-natal screening is now the 'new infanticide'. A place on earth that is quite spiritually dark is the country of Iceland. In this country, you will no longer find anyone with Down's syndrome (only 1 to 2 births per year w/ Down's there). This is due to heavy pre-natal screening and mom's ability to have abortion up to week 22. I do wonder about the rise in science of pre-natal screening, abortion limits and resulting population. The more science gives mother's clues to baby's outcome, the more abortion for reasons other than Down's could arise? In USA, the slip of that kind of slope will be determined by each State.
In China under former 1-child policy the result was abortions until family could get a little emperor... they are now dealing with a 105 male to 100 female ratio (for comparison, in USA its 98 males to every 100 females).
If raped, there's no reason to wait until late in the pregnancy to have an abortion. I'm all for providing every non-menopausal woman a year's supply of test strips. She can use one/week regardless of symptoms.
I think that I agree, particularly as the word PROTECTED has a higher emotional impact than PERMITTED and this is a very emotional issue for most people. PERMITTED does have some negative connotations.
This is the correct message, but unfortunately 20 something female voters can't absorb the logic. They'll view the Left/Progressive version of abortion up to, and including. post partum as the legitimate position, and that will be the Dm position in every race.
Have you considered that "20 something female voters" plus thirty something female voters are the same as "women of childbearing age"? The ones who get pregnant and may need access to safe, legal abortions?
Abortion at 9 months (or post partum) is a repub myth. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – before 13 weeks of gestation; 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. In 2022, 53% of all abortions were induced in the early weeks with pills. The abortion decision could just be left to women & doctors without govt interference and not much would change
False. The reason we don't know how many late term abortions there are is that there are not good statistics kept about it. It's the Dirty Little Secret the pro-abortion crowd doesn't want you to know. Indeed, they may not even want to know about it themselves, because the idea of aborting, say, an eight month fetus without a compelling reason (i.e., to save the life of the mother) is too horrible to contemplate. But it happens, and your side needs to be honest and own it.
Yes, leave the abortion decision to women and their doctors, "and not much would change"--except for the fact that each year there would be several hundred (or more) near- born children murdered in the womb. No biggie, right?
Since you claim that "there are not good statistics kept about it," how do YOU happen to know all about it? Why do you believe that women want to go through 8 months of a pregnancy and THEN have an abortion?
Why would some women go through 8 months of pregnancy and then have an abortion? I dunno, why do some women kill their new borns? Post partum depression is one reason. Pre partum depression might be a "reason" for late term abortion, esp if the guy who you thought was going to be there suddenly ditches you... etc. It happens and, as I suspected, you and your ilk are in denial about it.
Most doctors would not do this procedure, so I doubt if all the laws in the world are going to stop "unethical" abortions, and they will be kept in the dark if they exist. The right will feel better because they will think they have "saved" babies.
"Most doctors would not do the procedure"--ever hear of Kermit Gosnell? Probably not, you live in the Leftist bubble. Look him up and then get back to me. There's more than one Kermit Gosnell out there. Again, you are in denial about this.
You assume that I support laws banning late term abortions. Absent a strong consensus in their favor (76%-plus), I do not. I perceive abortion to be, preeminently, a moral and ethical battle to be won one conscience at a time. I'm working on you, right at this moment.
Since we are a Constitutional Republic, ruled by The People, I believe abortion should be voted on by The People. It looks like the consensus of We The People is that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, but with certain restrictions such as no abortions after a heartbeat is heard or some other reasonable measure. There will never be a total ban on abortion. The people will not allow it. As a pro lifer, I believe that the only way to assure safety of our babies in the womb is for our country to return to God and once again be a moral and God-fearing nation. Right now, Satan seems to be in charge.
Trump is taking a smart position on this. Like he says, we have to win elections. Taking a maximalist position will, in today's world, lead to a Democrat victory and unfettered abortions. Let each state decide democratically and forget talk of a national ban. We have too much coming from a national level as it is.
Lyndsay is most definitely not "pro-life," he is pro-war, pro-military industrial complex, pro-endless wars, and anti-having the compromising material the system has on him from coming out.
Most people who claim that "life is sacred from the moment of conception" support the Second Amendment, wars they agree with, their own self-defense and defense of their families, and the use of deadly force by police officers. Some religions, such as Roman Catholicism, oppose capital punishment, but same is not necessarily true for other denominations. Very few people on this planet express or put into practice a consistent, non-hypocritical belief against killing human beings under any circumstance.
The 2nd Amendment is not in conflict with the Right to Life - in fact, if it is accepted that people have a Right to their Own Lives, they certainly have the Right to defend Their Lives.
Defense of one's life, one's family's lives, etc. is not hypocritical.
The legal right to defend oneself is part of U.S. civil law. The argument that abortion should be outlawed because "human life is sacred from the moment of conception" is a religious law, and not a civil law. I don't know if Christian dogma, such as the 6th Commandment includes an exception for self defense.
The people who hold the above religious belief regarding abortion are attempting to legislate their religious belief into civil law. I am completely opposed to this alone, because I don't want to live in a theocratic state.
To extend the civil law regarding the right of self defense to the abortion situation, a pregnant woman should have the right to immediately terminate the life of anyone who is threatening her own, without having to petition anyone for permission to do so. In the highly publicized recent cases in which women were refused the right to terminate pregnancies that threatened their health and/or lives, their right to self-defense was violated.
With respect to hypocrisy, I will repeat what I said in my post above. If someone claims that taking a human life is never justified, based on a religious belief that human life is sacred from the moment of conception, how can there be so many exceptions. And how is it that the subculture that is the most aggressively anti-abortion based on the above religious belief overlaps to such a great extent with the subculture that is the most aggressively pro-gun, pro capital punishment and pro military?
Not sure what you mean by diverse lifestyle. Trump has been a public figure since I was a teen.
We know all about his lifestyle. He just clinched the nomination a few weeks ago and is just making clear his position. I think the announcement is fine. He was already President before. What don’t we know about Trump? He’s been a famous person for decades. There are a plethora of interviews on YouTube going back to the 80’s and he’s saying basically the same things for the last 40 yrs.
You certainly cannot say the same thing for Biden who has flipped flopped on many many things during the same time frame. I remember when he had to drop out of the presidential race in the 80’s for blatant plagiarism.
I have a different take on "pro choice": If a person chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, that person chooses the consequence of that action. Period, full stop. And that includes both partners. A conceived child does not deserve to die for convenience if the couple knew full well what they were doing.
With this, there is a rape/incest exception - if a woman does not choose to have sex, she should have the choice to carry the child to term. I'm mixed about a health exemption, mostly because that will be used by some to create an exemption one could drive an Oprah through. Maybe any health-related abortion would have to be only with an immediate and fatal risk?
Ultimately - and Trump is on the right track here - this is a state issue. Always has been. Trump is right in that there should be no federal ban, although if somehow an amendment were passed, that would be acceptable (will never happen either way). So my idea of "pro choice" would probably work here in Indiana (though it might be too "soft" for some), but in extreme Colorado, they will have abortion up to and after birth. I hate that for Colorado, but that's the core of federalism and this was always the issue with Roe. Let 50 states choose 50 ways and have the decision closer to the people.
This is one of the more sensible comments here - another example of the Vote With Your Feet option that many have used to escape famine, war, unacceptable governments, etc.
If you want abortion on demand up to the 9th month, you can move to one of those states that permit it, such as that liberal paradise known as Kalifornia....
You don’t even have to move to a more accommodating state. WA state will provide abortions to out of state women & will even pay for some of their traveling expenses. The largest, bluest county takes citizens tax dollars to pay these expenses. We, the tax payers don’t have a say, except to try & vote out the council ( good luck). And there is an effort to push out pregnancy support centers. The radical powers that be don’t want any competition to their abortion on demand business. Trump is right, Bringing it back to the states is the answer. Then let the people vote.
Well you know, Roe's ban on abortion after the first trimester is looking pretty good to me at this point. I'm not sure that those who were so determined to overturn it really thought about how a post-Roe world might look.
This. Americans are so stupid on this issue. Of the EU members, the Netherlands is the most 'progressive' on this issue, and the limit on abortion is 24 weeks there, with exceptions due to health circumstances, etc.
I believe the Netherlands is the country that boasts about virtually eliminating Downs Syndrome. Did they find a cure? No. They test and strongly push abortion for any child with the syndrome.
Iceland is right up there with the Netherlands (22 weeks). And yes, the pre-natal testing is the reason no more Down's syndrome babies born in Scandanavian countries. The And? The And is that here in USA we have approx. 6,000 babies born each year with DS. But with more and cheaper pre-natal screening, this number will likely drop. The other 'And' is what comes next after DS that gives Mom a reason to abort? Genetic disposition to obesity? Proclivity to develop mental illness? I don't know what science will be able to pre-Nataly detect in the future. But the door has been nudged open, for sure. And that is your 'And'
Yes, she made her choice when she consented to having sexual intercourse with the man.
If a woman freely chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, that woman chooses the consequence of that action. Period, full stop. (And that includes both partners.) A conceived child does not deserve to die for convenience if the couple knew full well what they were doing. There is a rape/incest exception: if a woman does not choose to have sex, and she was raped (including incest) she must do all she can do - and immediately get to an emergency room and have a "rape-kit" conducted.
Rape or incest exception? Is that when you get to kill the baby?? who is to say it was "rape or incest"? Kiling that baby is no different than killing any other aside from the emotional attachment which we cannot judge. But as noted in my post below, I am pro choice to the point of viability (which changes every day).
Really? You can't say it is rape when a woman is attacked by a stranger, sometimes at the point of a knife or gun? Do you think teenagers who get carried away by lust ( or in which the teen boy pressures the girl to "prove" her love) are prepared to decide about being responsible for another person for the next 18 years? A young woman has her life totally disrupted by a 9 month pregnancy while a young man moves on & often has NO consequences.
I'm pro choice. To a point. Read what I wrote. I am just pointing out that "rape and incest" exceptions are still killing human beings. If the point is to not kill human beings, than that fails the test. BTW, I know a very sweet kid who was the child born of a very real rape.
The young man will have 18 years of consequences if the mother files for paternity. No "stimmy money" no tax returns, garnished wages, etc. And it never goes away. In my State, you owe the State not the mother. If the mother gets SNAP, guess who has to pay the State for that too. The State writes the checks. So the resources of the state work to get the money till every single penny is paid. Times have changed for the betterment of single mothers. However that is still a very tough row to hoe even without the deadbeat chipping in a tiny bit.
Better to have birth control (for the male and the female). I made sure my daughters (4 of them) were on it. During my single days, I ALWAYS made sure we were "protected".
Please note that article was about the morning after pill, not oral contraceptives (or condoms, or diaphragms or other birth CONTROL). The "repubs" wanting to outlaw the morning after are those that want NO abortions. They consider the morning after pill equivalent to abortion.
Nikki Haley surprised me in what I think was the first debate last fall, when she said it's ridiculous to even think we could have a full ban in the US. I respect the wishes of the religious Right but I agree with Nikki on this one thing. I'm a Republican but believe that abortion should be "safe, rare, and legal." I think Trump is making the right decision here. I also agree it should be up to the voters in each state as to whether to set certain limits.
Not sure what that has to do with the issue of abortion. Obviously, whatever option a woman chooses has a greater likelihood of success with adequate medical care.
I agree with this. I always thought he was pro-choice anyway. After all, he voted Democrat for a good part of his life. Leave it with the states. A world of wanted children would make a world of difference.
Trump puts on a "show" of being 'pro-life" just like he puts on a "show" of being a "Bible reading christian." He made public statements implying that Marla maples should have an abortion. He has always been a fake and a conman.
Trump is taking a smart position on this. Like he says, we have to win elections. Taking a maximalist position will, in today's world, lead to a Democrat victory and unfettered abortions. Let each state decide democratically and forget talk of a national ban. We have too much coming from a national level as it is.
Democrats had 50 years to "codify" the abortion decision on a Federal level in the manner they would see fit at the time, depending on how the political winds blow at that time. In many of those 50 years, they controlled the White House, Senate and House and in ALL of those years until 2017, they had a pretty solid lock on SCOTUS. Remember Hillary's "Abortion should be safe and rare" line from the 1990s? Hers would be cast as a "far-right" position today. It NEVER was about "reproductive rights", it has ALWAYS been about having the largest hammer to beat the GOP over the head with, and completely dependent on what they could sell to angry women voters.
I am in full support of the Trump position because it is wise like King Solomon splitting the baby in half. The Biden or any other candidate’s position is untenable. All pro-lifers know this and we must be wise and not naive. The states get to decide anyway, so push for what you want where you live.
"Pro-lifers" need to fully grasp that abortion is pre-eminently a moral and ethical issue. Only when we have a solid consensus on abortion's immorality can we even begin to think about legal bans on it. We are far from that place today.
What do I think? There are two genies that ain’t going back in the bottle no matter how you view them: gun rights and abortion. If the left would let the right keep their guns, and the right let the left keep their abortions, we’d have to come up with other things to argue about.
Don't worry, Jrod. There are plenty of other things to argue about! The right and the left are so far apart in EVERYTHIG, I don't think we will ever run out of conflicts. If people could just stop trying to force their beliefs on others and leave us alone to live our lives, we could solve a lot of this crap. WAY too much "in your face" pushy people out there these days!
Isn’t it interesting that the Republicans have sustained such strong support for the right to kill humans, which is mostly what A2 is about, but at the same time want to be known as the “party of life.” There seems to be no level of blindness as total as blindness to one’s own hypocrisy.
Not to mention that they don't believe babies after birth are entitled to food, shelter or health care. If their parents are too poor, they sure don't want their tax dollars to support the baby.
I am pro life and will always root for parenthood and childhood. However, I am comfortable with Trump’s position. It is a national compromise I can live with while I strive to encourage and promote the pro life mentality to people I love and care about.
There is nothing in Trump's position that prohibits pro-life people from working every day to get women to choose life... perhaps the best way to do that is to establish choose life centers next to every abortion mill in the country. If we want women to make the right choice, then we have to make sure that they feel that they really do have a choice. And that means not just discouraging abortion but supporting women and their children after they are born.
Yes! Preborn does this almost exactly! They also support the mother and child for up to 2yrs, if needed. Fabulous organization to support monthly!
AlliGill - you would be amazed at the number of people I know who don't have a clue about our local pro-life clinic (or any pro-life organization for that matter) and the unheralded work they do to help pregnant women and the babies they chose to keep. Unlike Planned Parenthood, who gets all the media attention and our government tax dollars, Pro-Life centers survive on donations and volunteers with little or no recognition for their life-saving work. We could change the world if the media told the truth about abortion and focused on the positive effects Pro-life centers have.
Many men will think this is sort of a radical position, but I think both sides of the abortion debate are unrealistic and dogmatic. The pro-choice Democrats, who want portion legal until birth are just disgusting human beings, there is no excuse for this. And I think most Democrats think that as well. They just won’t leave their tribe. But I also think total abortion bans and heartbeat limits and IVF bans are equally extreme. Why do politicians on the fringes and radical groups on the fringes define our politics? Americans are very obviously in favor of legal abortion with limits. Not the Democrat position not the Republican position, the middle position. The moderates.
So, if you really wanna get to that, I think a logical way to decrease abortions is to really mean that you want to decrease them. Not just an ideological point of view but a practical point of view. So make birth control free. Make the morning after pill free. And do DNA test on babies where the father won’t take responsibility and dock their pay until a child is 18 years old. I know I’ll get a lot of haters on that, but having children involves an egg and a sperm and both adults are responsible for that. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions.
Democrats don''t want compromise. EVER.
Then they need to lose elections. That's how it's supposed to work.
Not when the 'lections are rigged and saturated with fraud.
Well that's the focus then: election integrity. That should be non-partisan, but partisans make phony arguments.
I "liked", and then "unliked" your comment before "liking" it again. The one thing that gives me pause is that I am not at all *comfortable* with Trump's position, but I think in a society that has dug itself so far into the various forms of anti-life mentality, it's probably the best we can hope for for quite a while.
I'm pretty much in your camp. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the defense of life in this day in which we live depends on achieving the political power to advance the pro-life position. The libs are expert at playing the long game, pushing for incremental advances to their positions. Its time for those on the other side to look at a similar approach.
However, and this is a big however, the stakes are so much higher - human life - that it is hard to reconcile the incremental approach with the defense of every human life. If this was such a clear-cut issue, it would be easier to address without this basic conflict.
I think that there is power in words and how you say them - the left is very aware of that. That said, I happen to favor the 15/16 week limit, and that is how the right should talk about it. Ban the word "ban". Abortions should be PERMITTED up until a reasonable time limit and then only PERMITTED in the case of threatening the health of the mother. The word PERMITTED should be utilized every time anyone used the word "ban". My 2 cents.
'Ban the word "ban"'
Perfect.
BradK (Afuera!) always manages to get to the meat of it. I like it.
I think we all do. That's why we're here.
Abortion at 9 months (or post partum) is a repub myth. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – before 13 weeks of gestation; 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. In 2022, 53% of all abortions were induced in the early weeks with pills. The abortion decision could just be left to women & doctors without govt interference and not much would change
See, there's that thing about words having meaning. "Myth" means something doesn't actually exist. This does, by your admission. The words "not much would change" means that yes, these things occasionally happen, but since we're playing with statistics, it's not meaningful. The problem is that you are talking about people living and dying. In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a total of 625,978 abortions from 46 states and Washington, DC - so, by your admission, approximately 6000 abortions occurred in the final trimester. That's why we need reasonable laws.
And why are they performed in the final trimester? Probably because the fetus has been discovered to be non- viable or there is a major complication threatening the mother's life ( infection, uncontrolled high blood pressure, etc). That's why we need exceptions for the health of the mother.
Then you would induce labor? Or perform a C section? Why an abortion when both can possibly be saved?
Perhaos the baby was found to have anomalies or was dying from the mother's illness also. During covid, many csections were performed
prematurely to save
the baby when the
mother was critically ill or dying of covid.
The majority of COVID-19-infected women who died had cesarean section (58.3%), 25% had a vaginal delivery, and 16.7% of patients were not full term.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Wellness/mom-meets-son-98-days-giving-birth-battling/story%3fid=83495416
We already agree on issues regarding the health of the mother. But with 42,000+ abortions performed after the first trimester, we need to wonder about the motivations there. How many are medical versus cosmetic or for convenience. The mantra seems to be "for any reason or no reason" - which I can accept in the first trimester, but beyond that, no.
Maybe someone should do a study.
I mostly agree with you NWCitizen. Abortions in 3rd Trimester are very rare statistically (like less than 1%). Where I may differ is I'm personally glad that Roe v. Wade is back to each State to decide on limit or no-limit. Because even that 1% in 3rd Trimester, IMO, should never be aborted unless life of mother at risk, incest, rape. In year 2023, that 1% represented a little over 10,000 of abortions in USA. I've seen a stillborn baby at 26 weeks (my own son), and the life is fully formed even by this tail-end of 2nd trimester. Yes, it was hyperbole for Trump to bring up infanticide (killing infant after birth). I'm a Trump supporter and I know those words were red meat. Christianity when it took hold pretty much eradicated infanticide. I think pre-natal screening is now the 'new infanticide'. A place on earth that is quite spiritually dark is the country of Iceland. In this country, you will no longer find anyone with Down's syndrome (only 1 to 2 births per year w/ Down's there). This is due to heavy pre-natal screening and mom's ability to have abortion up to week 22. I do wonder about the rise in science of pre-natal screening, abortion limits and resulting population. The more science gives mother's clues to baby's outcome, the more abortion for reasons other than Down's could arise? In USA, the slip of that kind of slope will be determined by each State.
In China under former 1-child policy the result was abortions until family could get a little emperor... they are now dealing with a 105 male to 100 female ratio (for comparison, in USA its 98 males to every 100 females).
If raped, there's no reason to wait until late in the pregnancy to have an abortion. I'm all for providing every non-menopausal woman a year's supply of test strips. She can use one/week regardless of symptoms.
Even better than the word permitted is the word protected. Rights are supposed to be protected not permitted.
I think that I agree, particularly as the word PROTECTED has a higher emotional impact than PERMITTED and this is a very emotional issue for most people. PERMITTED does have some negative connotations.
Great point.
Words do indeed matter, quite a lot.
This is the correct message, but unfortunately 20 something female voters can't absorb the logic. They'll view the Left/Progressive version of abortion up to, and including. post partum as the legitimate position, and that will be the Dm position in every race.
Have you considered that "20 something female voters" plus thirty something female voters are the same as "women of childbearing age"? The ones who get pregnant and may need access to safe, legal abortions?
And the male position will be to not absorb the logic of using a condom.
Abortion at 9 months (or post partum) is a repub myth. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – before 13 weeks of gestation; 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. In 2022, 53% of all abortions were induced in the early weeks with pills. The abortion decision could just be left to women & doctors without govt interference and not much would change
False. The reason we don't know how many late term abortions there are is that there are not good statistics kept about it. It's the Dirty Little Secret the pro-abortion crowd doesn't want you to know. Indeed, they may not even want to know about it themselves, because the idea of aborting, say, an eight month fetus without a compelling reason (i.e., to save the life of the mother) is too horrible to contemplate. But it happens, and your side needs to be honest and own it.
Yes, leave the abortion decision to women and their doctors, "and not much would change"--except for the fact that each year there would be several hundred (or more) near- born children murdered in the womb. No biggie, right?
Since you claim that "there are not good statistics kept about it," how do YOU happen to know all about it? Why do you believe that women want to go through 8 months of a pregnancy and THEN have an abortion?
Why would some women go through 8 months of pregnancy and then have an abortion? I dunno, why do some women kill their new borns? Post partum depression is one reason. Pre partum depression might be a "reason" for late term abortion, esp if the guy who you thought was going to be there suddenly ditches you... etc. It happens and, as I suspected, you and your ilk are in denial about it.
Most doctors would not do this procedure, so I doubt if all the laws in the world are going to stop "unethical" abortions, and they will be kept in the dark if they exist. The right will feel better because they will think they have "saved" babies.
"Most doctors would not do the procedure"--ever hear of Kermit Gosnell? Probably not, you live in the Leftist bubble. Look him up and then get back to me. There's more than one Kermit Gosnell out there. Again, you are in denial about this.
You assume that I support laws banning late term abortions. Absent a strong consensus in their favor (76%-plus), I do not. I perceive abortion to be, preeminently, a moral and ethical battle to be won one conscience at a time. I'm working on you, right at this moment.
Since we are a Constitutional Republic, ruled by The People, I believe abortion should be voted on by The People. It looks like the consensus of We The People is that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, but with certain restrictions such as no abortions after a heartbeat is heard or some other reasonable measure. There will never be a total ban on abortion. The people will not allow it. As a pro lifer, I believe that the only way to assure safety of our babies in the womb is for our country to return to God and once again be a moral and God-fearing nation. Right now, Satan seems to be in charge.
Trump is taking a smart position on this. Like he says, we have to win elections. Taking a maximalist position will, in today's world, lead to a Democrat victory and unfettered abortions. Let each state decide democratically and forget talk of a national ban. We have too much coming from a national level as it is.
Trump is trying to save the Republican Party from themselves.
Someone needs to muzzle Lyndsey Graham. He’s pro-life but never met a war he didn’t support. Go figure.
Lyndsay is most definitely not "pro-life," he is pro-war, pro-military industrial complex, pro-endless wars, and anti-having the compromising material the system has on him from coming out.
Most people who claim that "life is sacred from the moment of conception" support the Second Amendment, wars they agree with, their own self-defense and defense of their families, and the use of deadly force by police officers. Some religions, such as Roman Catholicism, oppose capital punishment, but same is not necessarily true for other denominations. Very few people on this planet express or put into practice a consistent, non-hypocritical belief against killing human beings under any circumstance.
The 2nd Amendment is not in conflict with the Right to Life - in fact, if it is accepted that people have a Right to their Own Lives, they certainly have the Right to defend Their Lives.
Defense of one's life, one's family's lives, etc. is not hypocritical.
The legal right to defend oneself is part of U.S. civil law. The argument that abortion should be outlawed because "human life is sacred from the moment of conception" is a religious law, and not a civil law. I don't know if Christian dogma, such as the 6th Commandment includes an exception for self defense.
The people who hold the above religious belief regarding abortion are attempting to legislate their religious belief into civil law. I am completely opposed to this alone, because I don't want to live in a theocratic state.
To extend the civil law regarding the right of self defense to the abortion situation, a pregnant woman should have the right to immediately terminate the life of anyone who is threatening her own, without having to petition anyone for permission to do so. In the highly publicized recent cases in which women were refused the right to terminate pregnancies that threatened their health and/or lives, their right to self-defense was violated.
With respect to hypocrisy, I will repeat what I said in my post above. If someone claims that taking a human life is never justified, based on a religious belief that human life is sacred from the moment of conception, how can there be so many exceptions. And how is it that the subculture that is the most aggressively anti-abortion based on the above religious belief overlaps to such a great extent with the subculture that is the most aggressively pro-gun, pro capital punishment and pro military?
People with guns in their home are more likely to die from rage, accident, or suicide. Many children accidently shoot themselves or others.
What direction is the wind blowing?
https://youtube.com/shorts/BshXNShC4b8?feature=shared
Graham just needs to come out of the closet, get a partner and ride off into the sunset before he starts WWIII.
Appears late for him to come out, but he may already have a more diverse lifestyle than is publicly known.
Not sure what you mean by diverse lifestyle. Trump has been a public figure since I was a teen.
We know all about his lifestyle. He just clinched the nomination a few weeks ago and is just making clear his position. I think the announcement is fine. He was already President before. What don’t we know about Trump? He’s been a famous person for decades. There are a plethora of interviews on YouTube going back to the 80’s and he’s saying basically the same things for the last 40 yrs.
You certainly cannot say the same thing for Biden who has flipped flopped on many many things during the same time frame. I remember when he had to drop out of the presidential race in the 80’s for blatant plagiarism.
I was responding to Jln's comment about L. Graham. Nothing to do with Trump, let alone Biden.
Got it. Sorry
Amen.
My comment is about Graham. Sometimes the stacking baffles me.
I have a different take on "pro choice": If a person chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, that person chooses the consequence of that action. Period, full stop. And that includes both partners. A conceived child does not deserve to die for convenience if the couple knew full well what they were doing.
With this, there is a rape/incest exception - if a woman does not choose to have sex, she should have the choice to carry the child to term. I'm mixed about a health exemption, mostly because that will be used by some to create an exemption one could drive an Oprah through. Maybe any health-related abortion would have to be only with an immediate and fatal risk?
Ultimately - and Trump is on the right track here - this is a state issue. Always has been. Trump is right in that there should be no federal ban, although if somehow an amendment were passed, that would be acceptable (will never happen either way). So my idea of "pro choice" would probably work here in Indiana (though it might be too "soft" for some), but in extreme Colorado, they will have abortion up to and after birth. I hate that for Colorado, but that's the core of federalism and this was always the issue with Roe. Let 50 states choose 50 ways and have the decision closer to the people.
Ppl can live in the State that most shares their value. Full stop.
This is one of the more sensible comments here - another example of the Vote With Your Feet option that many have used to escape famine, war, unacceptable governments, etc.
If you want abortion on demand up to the 9th month, you can move to one of those states that permit it, such as that liberal paradise known as Kalifornia....
You don’t even have to move to a more accommodating state. WA state will provide abortions to out of state women & will even pay for some of their traveling expenses. The largest, bluest county takes citizens tax dollars to pay these expenses. We, the tax payers don’t have a say, except to try & vote out the council ( good luck). And there is an effort to push out pregnancy support centers. The radical powers that be don’t want any competition to their abortion on demand business. Trump is right, Bringing it back to the states is the answer. Then let the people vote.
Well you know, Roe's ban on abortion after the first trimester is looking pretty good to me at this point. I'm not sure that those who were so determined to overturn it really thought about how a post-Roe world might look.
This. Americans are so stupid on this issue. Of the EU members, the Netherlands is the most 'progressive' on this issue, and the limit on abortion is 24 weeks there, with exceptions due to health circumstances, etc.
I believe the Netherlands is the country that boasts about virtually eliminating Downs Syndrome. Did they find a cure? No. They test and strongly push abortion for any child with the syndrome.
And? They do that here as well. There is no 'push'...parents are told if there are genetic markers for DS.
Iceland is right up there with the Netherlands (22 weeks). And yes, the pre-natal testing is the reason no more Down's syndrome babies born in Scandanavian countries. The And? The And is that here in USA we have approx. 6,000 babies born each year with DS. But with more and cheaper pre-natal screening, this number will likely drop. The other 'And' is what comes next after DS that gives Mom a reason to abort? Genetic disposition to obesity? Proclivity to develop mental illness? I don't know what science will be able to pre-Nataly detect in the future. But the door has been nudged open, for sure. And that is your 'And'
Red herrings are not helpful w/this issue.
Yes, she made her choice when she consented to having sexual intercourse with the man.
If a woman freely chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, that woman chooses the consequence of that action. Period, full stop. (And that includes both partners.) A conceived child does not deserve to die for convenience if the couple knew full well what they were doing. There is a rape/incest exception: if a woman does not choose to have sex, and she was raped (including incest) she must do all she can do - and immediately get to an emergency room and have a "rape-kit" conducted.
Rape or incest exception? Is that when you get to kill the baby?? who is to say it was "rape or incest"? Kiling that baby is no different than killing any other aside from the emotional attachment which we cannot judge. But as noted in my post below, I am pro choice to the point of viability (which changes every day).
Really? You can't say it is rape when a woman is attacked by a stranger, sometimes at the point of a knife or gun? Do you think teenagers who get carried away by lust ( or in which the teen boy pressures the girl to "prove" her love) are prepared to decide about being responsible for another person for the next 18 years? A young woman has her life totally disrupted by a 9 month pregnancy while a young man moves on & often has NO consequences.
I'm pro choice. To a point. Read what I wrote. I am just pointing out that "rape and incest" exceptions are still killing human beings. If the point is to not kill human beings, than that fails the test. BTW, I know a very sweet kid who was the child born of a very real rape.
The young man will have 18 years of consequences if the mother files for paternity. No "stimmy money" no tax returns, garnished wages, etc. And it never goes away. In my State, you owe the State not the mother. If the mother gets SNAP, guess who has to pay the State for that too. The State writes the checks. So the resources of the state work to get the money till every single penny is paid. Times have changed for the betterment of single mothers. However that is still a very tough row to hoe even without the deadbeat chipping in a tiny bit.
Better to have birth control (for the male and the female). I made sure my daughters (4 of them) were on it. During my single days, I ALWAYS made sure we were "protected".
Don't forget that repubs would like to outlaw birth control.
https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/
Please note that article was about the morning after pill, not oral contraceptives (or condoms, or diaphragms or other birth CONTROL). The "repubs" wanting to outlaw the morning after are those that want NO abortions. They consider the morning after pill equivalent to abortion.
Included iuds. Some repubs think the regular birth control pill works by preventing implantation so it should be banned.
Some would. Some democrats too. We just don't talk about them (Catholics and Muslims).
Millions of catholic women ignore the pope & use birth control.
Nikki Haley surprised me in what I think was the first debate last fall, when she said it's ridiculous to even think we could have a full ban in the US. I respect the wishes of the religious Right but I agree with Nikki on this one thing. I'm a Republican but believe that abortion should be "safe, rare, and legal." I think Trump is making the right decision here. I also agree it should be up to the voters in each state as to whether to set certain limits.
Most Democrats used to believe that too, especially when Bill Clinton was saying it.
I agree with Sasha and Trump. THIS is the way. I’m grateful Trump didn’t say abortion is a bloodbath.
Actually, abortion is a sort of bloodbath... funny how it's the bloodbath-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.
Actually miscarriages & birth are a "bloodbath" also. Many, many women in earlier times ( and still in the third world) bled to death after birth.
Not sure what that has to do with the issue of abortion. Obviously, whatever option a woman chooses has a greater likelihood of success with adequate medical care.
Just responding to Pacificus who claims abortion is a "bloodbath" when not considering that everything to do with a woman's reproduction is also.
It’s true but if Trump said it, it would be completely dominating the news. And we don’t want anything distracting us from the eclipse. ☀️🌑😎
I think the media will "damn if he does, and damn if he doesn't".
I agree with this. I always thought he was pro-choice anyway. After all, he voted Democrat for a good part of his life. Leave it with the states. A world of wanted children would make a world of difference.
Trump puts on a "show" of being 'pro-life" just like he puts on a "show" of being a "Bible reading christian." He made public statements implying that Marla maples should have an abortion. He has always been a fake and a conman.
Trump is taking a smart position on this. Like he says, we have to win elections. Taking a maximalist position will, in today's world, lead to a Democrat victory and unfettered abortions. Let each state decide democratically and forget talk of a national ban. We have too much coming from a national level as it is.
He did a masterful job with this announcement. He really needed to do this.
This is what a president should sound like. I hope he remains as poised as this up to November.
Democrats had 50 years to "codify" the abortion decision on a Federal level in the manner they would see fit at the time, depending on how the political winds blow at that time. In many of those 50 years, they controlled the White House, Senate and House and in ALL of those years until 2017, they had a pretty solid lock on SCOTUS. Remember Hillary's "Abortion should be safe and rare" line from the 1990s? Hers would be cast as a "far-right" position today. It NEVER was about "reproductive rights", it has ALWAYS been about having the largest hammer to beat the GOP over the head with, and completely dependent on what they could sell to angry women voters.
I am in full support of the Trump position because it is wise like King Solomon splitting the baby in half. The Biden or any other candidate’s position is untenable. All pro-lifers know this and we must be wise and not naive. The states get to decide anyway, so push for what you want where you live.
"Pro-lifers" need to fully grasp that abortion is pre-eminently a moral and ethical issue. Only when we have a solid consensus on abortion's immorality can we even begin to think about legal bans on it. We are far from that place today.
What do I think? There are two genies that ain’t going back in the bottle no matter how you view them: gun rights and abortion. If the left would let the right keep their guns, and the right let the left keep their abortions, we’d have to come up with other things to argue about.
Don't worry, Jrod. There are plenty of other things to argue about! The right and the left are so far apart in EVERYTHIG, I don't think we will ever run out of conflicts. If people could just stop trying to force their beliefs on others and leave us alone to live our lives, we could solve a lot of this crap. WAY too much "in your face" pushy people out there these days!
Isn’t it interesting that the Republicans have sustained such strong support for the right to kill humans, which is mostly what A2 is about, but at the same time want to be known as the “party of life.” There seems to be no level of blindness as total as blindness to one’s own hypocrisy.
Not to mention that they don't believe babies after birth are entitled to food, shelter or health care. If their parents are too poor, they sure don't want their tax dollars to support the baby.