ART OF THE DEAL: Trump floats middle ground in abortion wars.

Actually is the height of American Liberal Constitutional Federalism.

Absolutely. Most of the world is 12 weeks or less. I think that's a little tight for Americans, I suspect that something between 13 weeks and 20 weeks will work for just about everyone, but, not every State is going to see this the same way, some States will lean closer to the 13 weeks and others to the 20 weeks or so, and if you let each state come up with the regulation that is the best fit for their state, overall, you'll have a higher percentage of Americans satisfied with where the line is drawn than with a top down one size fits all approach.

 

The OP has **** to do with the Jim Jordan/Trump post of yours.

btw: If Trump was a "statesman" with convictions on the topic he wouldn't be all over the female uterus since 2015-16 when he ran for president and since then has changed his policy depending on which way the wind was blowing...votes.

What happened to him wanting to punish the women who had abortions.? .2016.

Surfer Joe summed Trump up perfectly.

"More like ‘art of the con’, since trump doesn’t give a flying **** about the issue and is just playing the room to fool the rubes.'

 

Research shows women get late term abortions for the same reason they get them earlier in pregnancy. Even if you want to terminate a pregnancy you still have to deliver the baby. The only thing that changes is whether you intentionally kill it on its way out or not.

15-20ish week pregnancies are different, but showing late term and implying there's medical reasons for the number is ignorant.

 

Trump,the blithering idiot, claims you have to know how to talk about abortions to win elections...lol

Bottom line is if you are really pro-life you don't compromise your belief that "life begins at conception" to win an election.
That makes you a hypocritical political whore.

'Trump says GOP abortion message doesn’t work: ‘They don’t know what to say’
BY NICK ROBERTSON - 09/15/23 9:50 PM ET

What a ****ing moron he is,
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4207658-trump-says-gop-abortion-message-doesnt-work/

 

Cite your research, because everything I’ve seen shows that late term abortions are for medical emergencies in the vast majority of cases.

 

yep, Trump word is worthless and changes like the wind

 

[QUOTE="CornPop, post: 1074462981, member: 123469"]Research shows women get late term abortions for the same reason they get them earlier in pregnancy. Even if you want to terminate a pregnancy you still have to deliver the baby. The only thing that changes is whether you intentionally kill it on its way out or not.

15-20ish week pregnancies are different, but showing late term and implying there's medical reasons for the number is ignorant.[/QUOTE]


What "research" and what are you claiming are these "late term abortions"?

 

Yeah, there's a lot of people making the claim, but research and surveys show something else.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

It generally doesn't matter if you remove a baby dead or alive from a woman. You typically still need to induce labor and deliver it. That or a C-section are the safest ways to remove a fetus. Medically, taking the time to kill it first doesn't make sense.

The study above shows the reason women reported they saught an abortion after twenty weeks is effectively the same as before. The statistically significant differences were age and employment status, not medical status.

 

Trump tries to play both sides on abortion

The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › campaign › 421927...

Sep 24, 2023 — Former President Trump is trying to have it both ways on abortion, reflecting the difficulties Republicans face as they try to navigate the ...

Trump doesn't give a **** about abortions and will say ANYTHING for votes and $$$.

snip

"Trump’s efforts to muddy the waters reflect his ever-shifting views on abortion, and while it could help in the general election, it also sets him up for criticism from both Democrats and his GOP rivals.'

 

if Christians want to reduce abortions... stop having them

"7 in 10 Women Who Have Had an Abortion Identify as a Christian"

https://research.lifeway.com/2021/1...have-had-an-abortion-identify-as-a-christian/

 

From an anti-Abortion website, less than 1% are over 21 weeks

https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

Code:

Percentage of 2020 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
≤6 wks    7-9 wks      10-13 wks     14-15 wks    16-17 wks    18-20 wks      ≥21 wks
45.3%      35.6%        12.2%           2.7%            1.6%            1.5%              0.9%

 

Which essentially was RvW

 

When the right decided they would rather let women die than allow them to make decisions about their own bodies

 

Except the vast majority of abortions after 20 weeks are fir foetal abnormality incompatible with life. Look at Canada - no questions and whenever and that is what their stats are showing as well

 

You seem to be having difficulty following the conversation. I don't care why he is putting forward sensible policy, I'm fine that he is putting forward sensible solutions forward. I'll leave the moralizing to you. Are you sure that a Bribed Biden supporter like yourself should even be taking someone else's moral inventory like that?

The solution has always been right there, I've seen it for decades, but for some reason only Trump states it as a policy goal. Are you sure that you aren't upset because Trump is going to actually settle this and you would rather fight about it for another half century?

2/3rds of the country would be perfectly satisfied with a line on abortion that is somewhere between the end of the first trimester and the end of the first half. Maybe you like arguing or something, I'd rather see a solution that has 2/3rds approval. Trump's simply right about this, and that seems to be driving you crazy.

I see Bribed Joe is suddenly frantically building a wall on the Southern Border. Trump was right on that too. Bribed Joe is just a lot more slow!

 

*That is what we did, roughly have, before the overturning of Roe: no state had a bar below 12 weeks, until just before this, with Texas's 6-week limit for abortions-- then allowing fellow citizens to sue them in civil court for some sort of "damages." I think one other state, around the same time, went to an 8-week limit. As the vast majority of abortions occur before the 15 week point-- which was the Mississippi law at the base of the Dobbs ruling-- in hindsight, it was probably a foolish move to challenge that law, with this current Supreme Court; it would have been much wiser strategy, to allow the 6 and 8 week bans, to be the first to be challenged all the way, if need be, to the SCOTUS.

However, this entire Trump argument, and your thread's, is bogus. Trump is the one who had promised to only pick Justice nominees who would overturn Roe. Our current state of affairs, is directly tied to that. So now, you are arguing, Trump is the one to solve the problem which he is ultimately responsible for creating? Sorry-- I'm not gullible enough to buy that.

We must deal with facts, however, as they now are. The Court has changed our legal system's Constitutional interpretation to be-- until there is a significant change in the composition of the Court's members-- that our founding document does not give the federal government the authority to protect abortion rights, period. Full stop. So it is the utmost in hypocrisy, for Republicans to now talk about new, national standards-- their hand-picked Court just ruled that the Federal government has no such authority: to either grant, or to limit, this activity!

Therefore, the "solution," is eminently clear: it is to actually follow through on the claims of all the Republicans, spinning the Dobbs decision as a good thing. That is, the answer is simply to "allow the PEOPLE in each state, to decide for themselves." To be clear, this does not mean to allow the representatives, elected by the people as their proxies for all governmental issues, to represent their choice, in this one specific issue. Were this put to a popular vote, in each state, that would lead us from this contentious place-- because all such votes thus far, have made it clear that even in very Red States, the vast majority of people (as your poll bears out) feel that at least for the first trimester, abortion would be perfectly legal. So this course of electoral action, would *deliver exactly the result you lay out, above, to supposedly be your idea of an ideal solution. Then why, I wonder, are not only Republicans writ large against this plan of action, but do I feel certain that you would be against it, as well?

 

so legalizing 95+ percent of abortions is sensible policy, good to hear

let's see if Trump can sell his plan to evangelicals

 

Roe pretended the constitution said something that it didn't.

But ever since Trump's sensible comments on abortion, he's been overtaking bribed Joe in the polls. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Trump by two in PA

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3879

 

If by “most of the world” you are including Africa and South America then you are probably right but it is nowhere near as simple as you are making out because it depends on the caveat “risk to a woman’s life or health”. Where that is included in the law then in all practicality it can and is done at virtually any stage. But it must be LIFE AND HEALTH

 

Your "reply" is no such thing. You do not even quote a full sentence of mine, and then everything you say, is non sequitur to what was in my post. You did not address my solution. Or my criticism, of your solution. Your response, was thus utterly pointless, and a tacit admission-- through your inability to produce any responsive counter-argument-- that my arguments had defeated yours.


Feel free to admit your losses, as many more times as you like, through similarly, and transparently, fake "replies."

 

That's fake news. I said quite clearly and quite accurately that Roe was based on a lie about the constitution. You didn't respond, because you cannot truthfully make a counter argument, therefore, my point defeated yours.

And the 15 weeks of Dobbs is more permissive that most of Europe, nearly all of the world and all of France. The sensible Trumpian approach of middle ground, say something between 13 weeks and 20 weeks or so, would likely be satisfactory for 2/3rds of the nation. This is not a change, we have fighting for a half century or something fairly easy to solve, but only Trump has made the point, and not by coincidence, he immediately surged in the polls.

This is Trump at his very best, The Art Of The Deal.

Is your problem that you want to fight and fear peace?
And therefore you fear Trump?

 

If the life of the unborn were truly your concern, then you wont have a problem if the sensible solution provided national healthcare. That goes much farther in saving the unborn then any ban ever could. See conservatives always want to enact policy without funding it. Never realizing its more expensive not investing properly to begin with.

This "deal" is just taking back his picks for supreme court judges and realizing his mistake. The compromise now for takey backsies is national funded healthcare. We get national healthcare, and you get a touch of control over citizens liberties to ensure such a ban is effective.

Its not fight and fear to realize you have the upper hand. This isnt a Trump original solution. Trumps supreme court picks are a train wreak, and this is him trying to walk it back.

 

By "upper hand" i mean first one to realization of a common goal.

 

No. Ending the lie of Roe returned our stolen ability to negotiate, but, we need to use our returned ability to actually negotiate. That's Trump's point and it's well made.

 

In what manner, first of all, does that even apply to my argument? I had acknowledged the pragmatic reality, that the new ruling was (for the time being), the law of the land. This makes your point, above, completely moot. (Or can you not follow that?)

My argument, in fact, was based on the ruling that Roe had been erroneous. I will re-quote myself here, though we both know that you will almost certainly remove it, when you reply: thus demonstrating, once again, that you cannot contest my argument.

In the face of this patently obvious fact-- your omitting of my arguments, from your purported "replies"-- your claims of your own victory--

-- are not only completely unconvincing, but laughably childish, and pathetic.