Trump's Actual Stated Positions on Abortion & IVF

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Billstime has not once mentioned his repeated lie about the President's position on the use of IVF

 

 

 

You do realize, Trump's "crown" achievement was appointing right-wing judges in place to kill Row v Wade. This is the same law that protects fertility treatments.

 

Trump may support IVF but leaving decisions like this to states allows states to ban abortion, IVF, Mifepristone and Misoprostol.  Additionally, Trump never explicitly stated that he would not sign an abortion ban.

 

When you've lost the Federalist:  Everything Wrong With Trump's 2024 Abortion And IVF Messaging

 

 

 

[daz28]

11 minutes ago, phypon said:

 

Just read your edit.  We def agree on that point.

 

That is the tough question, when does life "begin".  Some people have one opinion, and others have another.  We both can agree that once outside of the womb and birthed into the world, abortion is off limits.

 

I don't think this is a Christian issue (not sure why you feel the need to make that a point).  This is an issue of people having a different stance on the issue regardless of religion or other metrics.

 

The base point is, if it's left up to the states, rather than impressed on the population as a whole at the federal level, people's voices in their own communities are heard.  Why is that a problem for you?  

Sorry, but this isn't a correlation/causation argument.  The pro-life movement is a religiously driven movement, make no mistake.  The more Christian you are, the more pro-life you are, and while nearly nothing is 100%, this is very close to it.  My base point is that you're not free if the state, and I said 'state' before for a reason, is taking away any freedoms, which are fortunately defended by my country, even though they are basic indelible HUMAN rights.  If I sound like a founding father, that's good, because I'm trying to. If you'll note, I already pointed out that abortion doesn't impress anything upon anyone else.  That's the issue.  The only thing being impressed is someone else's religion. 

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

You do realize, Trump's "crown" achievement was appointing right-wing judges in place to kill Row v Wade. This is the same law that protects fertility treatments.

 

Trump may support IVF but leaving decisions like this to states allows states to ban abortion, IVF, Mifepristone and Misoprostol.  Additionally, Trump never explicitly stated that he would not sign an abortion ban.

 

When you've lost the Federalist:  Everything Wrong With Trump's 2024 Abortion And IVF Messaging

 

 

 

I think these dummies forgot that Alabama DID do just that.  The only thing that stopped them is the fear of losing votes.  They basically tried to see if they could get away with it.  It's the trump/GQP way.  HMMM.  Short memories.

Edited April 8 by daz28

[phypon]

8 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Sorry, but this isn't a correlation/causation argument.  The pro-life movement is a religiously driven movement, make no mistake.  The more Christian you are, the more pro-life you are, and while nearly nothing is 100%, this is very close to it.  My base point is that you're not free if the state, and I said 'state' before for a reason, is taking away any freedoms, which are fortunately defended by my country, even though they are basic indelible HUMAN rights.  If I sound like a founding father, that's good, because I'm trying to. If you'll note, I already pointed out that abortion doesn't impress anything upon anyone else.  That's the issue.  The only thing being impressed is someone else's religion. 

I think these dummies forgot that Alabama DID do just that.  The only thing that stopped them is the fear of losing votes.  They basically tried to see if they could get away with it.  It's the trump/GQP way.  HMMM.  Short memories.

You don't have to be a Christian to disagree with your sentiment.  All you're doing with a statement like that is parroting what you've heard in MSM.  It's complete BS and when you do that you are the one making a correlation/causation argument. 

 

You talk about human rights and freedom of choice.  You said: "You should be able to abort up until it would be able to survive outside the mother on it's own". With leaving it up to the states, go live in a state that aligns with your freedom of choice.  I've already asked this, why is that a problem for you?  Leaving if up to the states gives you your choice as well as the people that don't agree with you their choice to follow what they believe in.  How is that not a solution for you?  Doing it this way means that you are not impressing your ideology onto anyone else and the same time no one is impressing their ideology on to you.  Freedom of choice, as you say.  Not sure why leaving it up to the states is a problem for you since you are actually advocating for freedom of choice.  Doing so completely aligns with your primary argument so I don't understand why you would have a problem with this.

[Wacka]

30 minutes ago, daz28 said:

The 10th Amendment doesn't mean states have a right to remove freedoms.  It's actually intended to have quite the opposite meaning. 

The 10th amendment means what it says.  ABORTION IS NOT A FREEDOM  stated in the Bill of Rights. If you wants a nationwide ban or have it legal in all 50 states, pass an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise,  what the SC did is the only Constutional way, by leaving it up to the states.

[daz28]

23 minutes ago, Wacka said:

The 10th amendment means what it says.  ABORTION IS NOT A FREEDOM  stated in the Bill of Rights. If you wants a nationwide ban or have it legal in all 50 states, pass an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise,  what the SC did is the only Constutional way, by leaving it up to the states.

Bodily autonomy is privacy.  14th Amendment.  Privacy is the KEY to freedom.  It means that what I do, if it has no bearing on you, is none of your business.  The courts had already figured out that what I said was the common sense answer, with respect to viability, is the best solution.  This whole issue is just Christo-fascists trying to have their way.  Totally agree that we need new amendments for a changing world, but the slippery slope people pretend that an ever-changing SCOTUS is better than having well-defined articles.  Like trusting former lawyers, who's job it is to twist laws, to give impartial interpretations is a great idea.  If they were to put bodily autonomy on the docket for an Amendment, would you be for or against it?

Edited April 8 by daz28

[B-Man]

 

 

Since Daz has (dutifully) spun what President Trump clearly stated as his opinion,

 

it might be best if we posted his announcement again.

 

Take the four minutes and listen to the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Wacka]

Atheistic commie Nazis ⬆️ trying to determine hidden meanings  in one sentence  amendments.

[BillsFanNC]

It doesn't matter what Trump says or does.

 

It's always filtered through their marxist lens to mean whatever they want it to mean.

[daz28]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Since Daz has (dutifully) spun what President Trump clearly stated as his opinion,

 

it might be best if we posted his announcement again.

 

Take the four minutes and listen to the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

He's saying whatever he thinks gets him the most votes.  Ultimately, he's already had the effect they were looking for by court stacking.  

 

8 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Atheistic commie Nazis ⬆️ trying to determine hidden meanings  in one sentence  amendments.

You don't believe you have a right to privacy?  Should your medical records be the ward of the state?  By that definition, they also control your treatment.  

[daz28]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

It doesn't matter what Trump says or does.

 

It's always filtered through their marxist lens to mean whatever they want it to mean.

The president probably has the least say of any player in the abortion issue anyways.  Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ that has policy, and doesn't just do what the executive says to do under his understanding, or lack of or degree of respect for, the law.  If people didn't refuse to walk out en masse, then we wouldn't even be talking about the fake electors plot, because the people who orchestrated it would still be in power.  

[Wacka]

Commies gotta commie. ⬆️ 

[phypon]

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Commies gotta commie. ⬆️ 

When someone like him says "Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ" you know they are a commie.  

[daz28]

Just now, Wacka said:

Commies gotta commie. ⬆️ 

With a name like yours, I don't even have to bother to try to label you, like the external forces, that control thoughts, want everyone to do.  Wacka will suffice.  Karen is the biggest offender.  He wants to label, censor, and if possible, remove access to other opinions and sources.  Probably more fascists than communist, but we'll stick with fascists for now, because it's funnier watching you guys misuse commie.  

2 minutes ago, phypon said:

When someone like him says "Luckily, we have a deep state DOJ" you know they are a commie.  

You prefer loyalist?

[4th&long]

The funny thing is you dumb asses will believe anything shitler says. Just like he didn’t raise $50 mil. He will say anything for a vote. LOL at you for being suckered in. And don’t come at me telling me you believe him because that will just confirm how *****en stupid you are!

[phypon]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

With a name like yours, I don't even have to bother to try to label you, like the external forces, that control thoughts, want everyone to do.  Wacka will suffice.  Karen is the biggest offender.  He wants to label, censor, and if possible, remove access to other opinions and sources.  Probably more fascists than communist, but we'll stick with fascists for now, because it's funnier watching you guys misuse commie.  

You prefer loyalist?

YOU are the loyalist.  You just don't see it.

1 minute ago, 4th&long said:

The funny thing is you dumb asses will believe anything shitler says. Just like he didn’t raise $50 mil. He will say anything for a vote. LOL at you for being suckered in. And don’t come at me telling me you believe him because that will just confirm how *****en stupid you are!

The funny thing is that all you people do is make everything about Trump.  It's so much bigger than that.  I'll say the same as I said to your friend, you just don't see it.

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

 He will say anything for a vote. 

To be fair, that applies to ALL of them.  The key is not to fall into EITHER side's narrative.  Falling into a cult is the worst case scenario, though.  They have.  If one disagrees with an argument, then the rest have to label them.  NC has taken it a step Fuhrther, and wants the cult insulated here from ideas.  Soon all you'll have here is silly memes and arrows with unfair, even ridiculous, labels for the posters you haven't censored(self-banned).  Why he doesn't just go to BF, instead of trying to make this the carbon copy, is unclear.  I'd assume it's because he wishes he had his own lil' DR's paradise.  

[Wacka]

Have had my user name since this board was formed almost 30 years ago in the 90s by SDS before it formally became TBD. Derived from my last name.

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, phypon said:

YOU are the loyalist.  You just don't see it.

The funny thing is that all you people do is make everything about Trump.  It's so much bigger than that.  I'll say the same as I said to your friend, you just don't see it.

You don't see how trump would be president if "Mike Pence did the right thing"?  The "loyalist' almost pulled it off, except for ONE guy, and the PATRIOTS at the DOJ, that threatened to all quit.  I really hope your bubble isn't that thick.  Tell me factually, what part of what I just said is incorrect.

1 minute ago, Wacka said:

Have had my user name since this board was formed almost 30 years ago in the 90s by SDS before it formally became TBD. Derived from my last name.

So you always been whacka?

[Wacka]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

To be fair, that applies to ALL of them.  The key is not to fall into EITHER side's narrative.  Falling into a cult is the worst case scenario, though.  They have.  If one disagrees with an argument, then the rest have to label them.  NC has taken it a step Fuhrther, and wants the cult insulated here from ideas.  Soon all you'll have here is silly memes and arrows with unfair, even ridiculous, labels for the posters you haven't censored(self-banned).  Why he doesn't just go to BF, instead of trying to make this the carbon copy, is unclear.  I'd assume it's because he wishes he had his own lil' DR's paradise.  

Projection and obfuscation is all they have.

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Projection and obfuscation is all they have.

So you'd agree that any state(world view term) should not have any restrictions on your indelible freedom to bodily autonomy, or are you still insisting the state owns that?  Is it even possible that ANYTHING could be more personal than your own body??  

Edited April 9 by daz28

[BillStime]

45 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

It doesn't matter what Trump says or does.

👆100% MAGA‼️

[BillsFanNC]

Trump says and does a whole bunch of stupid *****.  

 

But they never bring up that *****, it's always the manufactured BS.

 

Commies gotta commie.

[phypon]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You don't see how trump would be president if "Mike Pence did the right thing"?  The "loyalist' almost pulled it off, except for ONE guy, and the PATRIOTS at the DOJ, that threatened to all quit.  I really hope your bubble isn't that thick.  Tell me factually, what part of what I just said is incorrect.

So you always been whacka?

The election was rigged.  Proven in court with the easy manipulation of counting machines, votes from dead people, more votes than registered voters, videos of votes being tossed in a dumpster, votes being transported via freight trucking.  That is your deep state.  Like it or hate it, we're all being disenfranchised.  That's why I say it's bigger than just a Trump issue.  They are dividing us.  I'd rather not see that happen.  People like you and I ARE the PEOPLE and regardless of election results, it should be fair.  That DOJ is being used as lawfare, and will most likely be used again after the next election.  That's a big problem for either side.  We need to see what "they" are doing and try to unify to put a stop to it altogether.    

[daz28]

1 minute ago, phypon said:

The election was rigged.  Proven in court with the easy manipulation of counting machines, votes from dead people, more votes than registered voters, videos of votes being tossed in a dumpster, votes being transported via freight trucking.  That is your deep state.  Like it or hate it, we're all being disenfranchised.  That's why I say it's bigger than just a Trump issue.  They are dividing us.  I'd rather not see that happen.  People like you and I ARE the PEOPLE and regardless of election results, it should be fair.  That DOJ is being used as lawfare, and will most likely be used again after the next election.  That's a big problem for either side.  We need to see what "they" are doing and try to unify to put a stop to it altogether.    

We've BEEN disenfranchised, but not in the ways you're claiming.  Your 'deep state' is people doing their jobs, and I'd love to hear your idea on how you do those jobs w/o people.  The real lawfare has been being playing out in Congress for a while, but it's about smearing, not justice.  No legislating, no justice just investigating.  The system is so rigged against you and I, that it's impossible to even attempt to change it.  Our only chance is intelligent, informed voting, and somehow the vast increased access to knowledge has made that nearly impossible.  We're not going to put a stop to anything, my friend, but as long as we hold onto civil conversation, it keeps them scared.  It's not the false info that's the existential threat, it's the thought of it breaking communication that is.  I'm not telling anyone to ignore NC, instead I'm showing you how he's perpetuating the fascist agenda.  I think truth soashul is an absolute (worthless)cesspool, but I'm glad it exists.  Do you know who the fascists #1 enemy was in the 1930's?  They launched their platform on labeling commies, and proceeded onto other 'undesirables' as they gained more power.  

28 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Projection and obfuscation is all they have.

So you'd agree that any state(world view term) should not have any restrictions on your indelible freedom to bodily autonomy, or are you still insisting the state owns that?  Is it even possible that ANYTHING could be more personal than your own body??  Should the government, better yet, should a non-secular government have any need whatsoever for your bodily autonomy?  I mean if they can do that, then how on Earth could you expect to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers" if you're not even secure in your own body?

[phypon]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

We've BEEN disenfranchised, but not in the ways you're claiming.  Your 'deep state' is people doing their jobs, and I'd love to hear your idea on how you do those jobs w/o people.  The real lawfare has been being playing out in Congress for a while, but it's about smearing, not justice.  No legislating, no justice just investigating.  The system is so rigged against you and I, that it's impossible to even attempt to change it.  Our only chance is intelligent, informed voting, and somehow the vast increased access to knowledge has made that nearly impossible.  We're not going to put a stop to anything, my friend, but as long as we hold onto civil conversation, it keeps them scared.  It's not the false info that's the existential threat, it's the thought of it breaking communication that is.  I'm not telling anyone to ignore NC, instead I'm showing you how he's perpetuating the fascist agenda.  I think truth soashul is an absolute (worthless)cesspool, but I'm glad it exists.  Do you know who the fascists #1 enemy was in the 1930's?  They launched their platform on labeling commies, and proceeded onto other 'undesirables' as they gained more power.  

Dude, your example of the 1930's NAZI's exemplifies the left today.  "Deplorables", the "intolerant" against what we now call the 'right" or "conservatives". Also, the NAZI party HAD a party here in America.  There was also a large communist movement in this country in the late 40's and 50's with doctrine that was meant to come to fruition after 50 years.  Hell, go watch "Oppenheimer".  

 

You yourself made a comment about changing the Constitution and adding amendments to it.  If you are all in on the policies and propaganda that has been put in front of you, then so be it.  That being the case, you are not a part of this country and what it was founded on.  Go somewhere else.  We are at an impasse.  I have no sympathy for you.  None.

[daz28]

11 minutes ago, phypon said:

Dude, your example of the 1930's NAZI's exemplifies the left today.  "Deplorables", the "intolerant" against what we now call the 'right" or "conservatives". Also, the NAZI party HAD a party here in America.  There was also a large communist movement in this country in the late 40's and 50's with doctrine that was meant to come to fruition after 50 years.  Hell, go watch "Oppenheimer".  

 

You yourself made a comment about changing the Constitution and adding amendments to it.  If you are all in on the policies and propaganda that has been put in front of you, then so be it.  That being the case, you are not a part of this country and what it was founded on.  Go somewhere else.  We are at an impasse.  I have no sympathy for you.  None.

Oppenheimer is your research/background?  I'm well aware of the Nazi rise.  I have no love for the far right or far left, and for neither political party.  All I look for is my(our) freedoms, and compromises from moderate parties for the good of all.  I very specifically said well-written Amendments, that would clear up the issues that a yo-yo SCOTUS can't fix.  I'm not going anywhere.  You'll have to load me on the train.  Would never accept your sympathy.  May God have mercy on your soul!  LOL

Edited April 9 by daz28

[phypon]

14 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Oppenheimer is your research/background?  I'm well aware of the Nazi rise.  I have no love for the far right or far left, and for neither political party.  All I look for is my(our) freedoms, and compromises from moderate parties for the good of all.  I very specifically said well-written Amendments, that would clear up the issues that a yo-yo SCOTUS can't fix.  I'm not going anywhere.  You'll have to load me on the train.  Would never accept your sympathy.  May God have mercy on your soul!  LOL

By all means, give the rest of us a history lesson of your awareness concerning the Nazi rise.  Since you are well aware of the subject, enlighten us on how it unfolded.  Start from the beginning, you know the tactics used and so forth.  I mean, you must be an expert since you are the one that brought it up initially.  Do tell.  We all have our popcorn and are waiting for your breakdown... 

 

And funny how you that you call the SCOTUS "yo-yo".  Who needs checks and balances, right?  I think a Nazi would say something like that...

Edited April 9 by phypon

[BillStime]

The cult is panicked - lmao

 

 

[daz28]

1 hour ago, phypon said:

By all means, give the rest of us a history lesson of your awareness concerning the Nazi rise.  Since you are well aware of the subject, enlighten us on how it unfolded.  Start from the beginning, you know the tactics used and so forth.  I mean, you must be an expert since you are the one that brought it up initially.  Do tell.  We all have our popcorn and are waiting for your breakdown... 

 

And funny how you that you call the SCOTUS "yo-yo".  Who needs checks and balances, right?  I think a Nazi would say something like that...

Try Google, but more importantly, attach yourself to the subject enough to discern what's factual.  I'm not your personal Brittanica.  Yo-yo meant that they change policy every generation, creating political drama, that they use to distract the uneducated.  Imagine the horror of well written out statutes, that aren't secular.  

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

The cult is panicked - lmao

 

 

Sounds like a good time to drop a Hunter BAWMBSHELL!!! 

[phypon]

8 hours ago, daz28 said:

Try Google, but more importantly, attach yourself to the subject enough to discern what's factual.  I'm not your personal Brittanica.  Yo-yo meant that they change policy every generation, creating political drama, that they use to distract the uneducated.  Imagine the horror of well written out statutes, that aren't secular.  

Sounds like the perfect solution to what you are saying about the SC and well written out statutes would be to leave it up to the states...

[The Frankish Reich]

12 hours ago, phypon said:

Proven in court

Where? When?

[Tommy Callahan]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Where? When?

Dobbs.  

 

For real.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Dobbs.  

 

For real.

 

 

The reference was to the "rigged election" being proved in court.

So ... where? When?

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The reference was to the "rigged election" being proved in court.

So ... where? When?

WTH does that have to do with the narrative of this thread?

 

 

[phypon]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Where? When?

You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped?  Look it up.  Be concerned.  It could happen by either party.  Not good.

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, phypon said:

You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped?  Look it up.  Be concerned.  It could happen by either party.  Not good.

No, I haven't seen any credible reports of that.

In fact, I've seen Dominion settle libel claims against Fox News for nearly a billion dollars. 

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, phypon said:

You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped?  Look it up.  Be concerned.  It could happen by either party.  Not good.

 

Finding doesn't rely on any sources to get its news. Information arrives in its brain case out of thin air and then it forms its opinions accordingly.

 

Now if Finding DID actually rely on msm for news and reporting about Dominion, it wouldn't find it anyway, because those stories aren't reported. 

[The Frankish Reich]

13 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

WTH does that have to do with the narrative of this thread?

 

 

I don't know. I didn't hijack the thread. I'm just responding to a clearly false claim.

 

To return to the point of the thread:

 

Trump's latest position is consistent with the arguments put forth by the anti-Roe litigants in Dobbs: it is an issue for the states.

The problem is that his earlier position - voiced out loud, and often - was that there should be some kind of national compromise, enforced by federal law, guaranteeing the right of women to have an abortion up to 15 weeks, and outlawing it after hat. In other words, some theory that the federal government ultimately can (under delegated constitutional powers) and should impose standardized rules on the 50 states.

 

So when liberals say they're suspicious of Trump's motives here, they're not exactly just making it up. If you are a strict constitutionalist - the federal government only has powers that is has been expressly assigned by the constitution - you never, ever, ever would have suggested that the federal government can and should step into the fray. So either he's not a strict constitutionalist or he's just trying whatever to get elected, implicitly reserving his right to change his mind again.

Edited April 9 by The Frankish Reich

[phypon]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No, I haven't seen any credible reports of that.

In fact, I've seen Dominion settle libel claims against Fox News for nearly a billion dollars. 

You should look it up.  Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, it's not good.

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't know. I didn't hijack the thread. I'm just responding to a clearly false claim.

Trump's latest position is consistent with the arguments put forth by the anti-Roe litigants in Dobbs: it is an issue for the states.

The problem is that his earlier position - voiced out loud, and often - was that there should be some kind of national compromise, enforced by federal law, guaranteeing the right of women to have an abortion up to 15 weeks, and outlawing it after hat. In other words, some theory that the federal government ultimately can (under delegated constitutional powers) and should impose standardized rules on the 50 states.

 

So when liberals say they're suspicious of Trump's motives here, they're not exactly just making it up. If you are a strict constitutionalist - the federal government only has powers that is has been expressly assigned by the constitution - you never, ever, ever would have suggested that the federal government can and should step into the fray. So either he's not a strict constitutionalist or he's just trying whatever to get elected, implicitly reserving his right to change his mind again.

Back to the point, that's why it's better to leave it up to the states.

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, phypon said:

Back to the point, that's why it's better to leave it up to the states.

But more to the point: why should we trust that Trump's latest "completely a matter for the states to decide" will be his position as President?

What if Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, and send Trump a bill outlawing abortion nationally after 15 weeks? Would he sign it? He previously suggested he would.