[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232 Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need "How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America" How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos. Reagan JOKE On The Homeless The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report) Sicko Transfaggots video The Englund Gambit Checkmate 20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover! "Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning" "'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success" "Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace" "Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals" what a freakin' insane asylum Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax "No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability" RIP Ozzy "Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return" "Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign" "We Hate Communism!!" "Mamdani and the Democratic Schism" "The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death" "President Badass" "Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster" "How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran" There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 50195 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. 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." "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 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. .@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 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 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! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 82. #1. To: All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, SOSO, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, et al (#0) ping Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-02   9:48:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: TooConservative, All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, (#1) "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states............." The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have. Either an unborn fetus is or is not a human being, a person entitled to every protection and right under the U.S. Constitution as is any other person. To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   11:32:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: SOSO (#16) "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   11:52:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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." 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. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   12:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: SOSO (#25) "There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago." 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? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   13:13:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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? 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. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   13:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: SOSO (#37) "The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago." 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. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   13:53:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   15:37:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: SOSO (#56) "No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so." I told you before. I don't care. My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   16:42:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#61) My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973. That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening. My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not? SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   18:15:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: SOSO (#63) "My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not?" I disagree. For three reasons. 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime. 2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws. 3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   18:31:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: misterwhite (#65) 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder. "2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws." True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights. "3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery - enough said I trust. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   19:16:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: SOSO (#67) "Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder." Thank you for pointing out that .0001% of murders are federal crimes. It totally destroys the point I was trying to make. I give up. You win. "True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights." False. It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). "All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 82. #83. To: misterwhite (#82) It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. ""All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson." I'm not too surprised. Just because something in the past was tolerated or codified in law or was comfortable etc. etc. etc. doesn't make it right, much less a rational basis to continue it. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03 11:41:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 82. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com