"And it will be fresh in the minds of WI voters for Tuesday's primary."

Could work in Trump's favor. It'd really be funny if exit interviews showed Democrats voting for Trump en masse because they thought he was pro-choice.

"The President has no control over state abortion laws."

The interviewers sure do act as though he does.

"On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws."

So you think he should lie and tell them he will? And how will he do that, pray tell? By Executive Order?

Could work in Trump's favor.

You should count on it. How can Trump lose WI after hitting this one out of the ballpark?

"How can Trump lose WI after hitting this one out of the ballpark?"

There you go! That's the attitude we like to see!

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.

Trump the uniter .He has untied both sides of the abortion issue in opposition to him. Well done !

"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.

"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.

I'm just waiting for Trump to tell us that abortion should be made mandatory.

Odd. I was waiting for you to say the same thing, TooProAbort.

The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.

Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm

The interviewers sure do act as though he does.

The interviewers want a dictator.

"The interviewers want a dictator."

The interviewers want their dictator.

Amounts to: I'm personally against murder but think we need to keep it lawful for others.

Trump has just embraced the NARAL platform.

You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County.

I think some religions think dancing is sinful too.

While you're at it, ban bacon too!

"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.

The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.

Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm

Did I say that moron? But perhaps you are against the centralized power that did away with slavery or gave women the right to vote or establishes reasonable restrictions preventing the abuse of public natural resources or fights our wars. It hard to imagine that you can be any bigger of a dolt.

Are you one of those hard shell Baptists?

You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County.

I think some religions think dancing is sinful too.

While you're at it, ban bacon too!

You've lost it Fred. Better get back on those meds.

Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It...............

Gee, I wonder how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-choice. And again how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-life. His own words "now that I think about it" strongly suggest that he hadn't thought about either position before. But to his credit he is changing.

But.......but........I wonder what other positions that he has espoused will change after he really thinks about them?

There really is no hope for a Trump dupe.

Did I say that moron?

Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible.

Villanova will win it all too. I'm not sure where to make that bet.

I am certain that someone at the track can point you in the right direction.

"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?

Did I say that moron?

Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible.

Then please have the courage to post my statement. If you can't you lose big time. But you are used to that, aren't you?

post my statement.

"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have."

Did you forget already?

I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years.

That's immoral! Only centralized government is good!

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.

"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have."

Did you forget already?

LMAO. It appears that you did, loser. You must be a Trump dupe.

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.

Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it.

Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?

It appears that you did

Only to you and the voices in your head.

Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?

Who cares? He likely will not be relevant in a few months. But if he is he will likely change his mind.....again......and again......and again.

"Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it."

I have no inherent problem with either. But effectiveness always comes down to enforcement.

Simply post my statement

Again? It won't get any less stupid.

Simply post my statement

Again? It won't get any less stupid.

Perhaps but it certainly would prove that you are not lying. Right now you act as a dickless wonder that doesn't have any balls either to defend himself. So if you do not post my statement proving you claim please just slink away and hope nobody else sh*ts on you. Over and out, eunuch.

"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.

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?

These latest several positions are consistent with the theory that The Donald never wanted to be the nominee. Just sayin' ...

"Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?"

Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.

Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.

The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used.

Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.

"The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used."

How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?

Answer: They didn't.

How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?

Answer: They didn't.

Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president.

And by my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did you - or are you seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?

Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president.

Sure it does.

By my count, the last five includes Reagan.

You can count? Who knew.

What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified when he was President?

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.