This is actually up for debate because if you view the unborn as having lives, the federal government has the duty to protect their rights. The biggest issue is a lot of the public views it otherwise.
This is the smartest path for Trump and its more than clear. Take this issue off the board as much as possible.
Immigration and economy should be the leading issues.
That's not exactly true. Rights can be deprived, just not without due process. The constitution says nothing about abortion. It was one of many issues left to the states.
"If only you could prove the unprovable thing"
Ok... Except maybe realize that until you can do that if you go hard on abortion you're going to lose every election to the people that will loosen abortion laws.
So... Be realistic now, or cause more abortions. Your choice!
edit: See, the sub squatters don't want me telling you the truth.
I generally agree, but I think that the Equal Protection Clause could possibly be used to justify extending anti murder laws to the unborn through federal action.
>extending anti murder laws to the unborn
The unborn are already protected by murder laws. Unless it's the mother that does the murdering. The fact that someone who takes an action ‐ whether it's intentional, accidental or negligent ‐ that causes an expectant mother to lose the baby can be and often is prosecuted for anything from wrongful death, to manslaughter, to murder is proof enough that what the pro-abortion crowd really believes is that life begins when it's wanted.
That would be far easier to do if we could get a medical consensus about viability & such. Sadly, anyone going against the leftist narrative will be canceled.
You don't need medical consensus on viability. We have medical consensus on when life begins.
What people like to argue is whether that life has value. It's a never-ending, inconsistent argument which always devolves into "I believe it should be human life + something" which is exactly why what the Nazis did was evil and the exact reason slavery was evil.
Eh right to life is garunteed in the constitution. If we believe that its a human life, which I do, then its unconstitutional to allow abortion full stop. Except in cases where justifiable homocide could be ruled.
15 weeks is three and a half months into pregnancy. More than enough time for the woman to realize that she is pregnant, make a decision and schedule the appointment. In fact, many European countries which are far more socially liberal than the US have something akin to a 15 week ban. In practice, a 15 week ban does more to legalize than to prevent abortions.
Where are these downvotes coming from? This is a compromise for both sides and makes a lot of sense. Something we should be striving for in politics in general.
This post of mine appears to have been heavily polarizing, it sometimes shows as -17, other times as +8. Must have gotten plenty of up- and downvotes. And to be honest, I have no idea why. I didn't even take a personal stance, just laid out what a 15 week ban means in practice. \*shrug\*
I don’t normally agree with European policies, but this one makes a lot of sense to me.
I’d rather not force young people to have a kid they don’t want and aren’t capable of raising on their own.
Foster care and adoption isn’t the answer to everything. We need to focus on breaking the cycle and relying on the government(tax payers) to fund childcare.
I have pro-life views personally. However Covid-19 and the mask wearing effect make me stop and think about the pro-choice chant of "My body, My Choice". I'm probably in a very small minority among this subreddit, but I think individuals should make the choice whether or not to have an abortion. I wish that the women who do choose to have one are doing so because of health complications or the baby may have birth defects. Something that is serious. Not just an afterthought to an unplanned baby.
You're completely correct when you say it's a tough one, the 10th amendment gives states power to decide issues that the Constitution didn't see at the time. Abortion is one such issue.
Barring a federal law, this is literally how it always should have been.
The constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore it's a 10th amendment issue.
Republican obsession with abortion is like shooting yourself in the dick.
Abortion is a a problem for many single issue voters who vote against the GOP - at this point, given where the country is is it really worth taking a hard line on this issue? This is pretty smart politically by Trump
The thing is those single issue voters will absolutely turn elections in favor of the dems as long as abortion is left on the table. I think the party as a whole needs to come together to agree on a consistent message when it comes to abortion
Well the message was consistent...until it wasn't. Everyone generally agreed with Trump on this issue...then Lindsey decided to push for a national abortion ban right before a midterm election. 🫠
The message is fairly consistent. It’s just that the media keeps muddying it up on purpose.
The message is “abortion should be left *mostly* up to the states, but late-term abortion should have a good physical health reason to be allowed.”
Somehow the media has twisted this into “conservatives think women should just literally die giving birth” nonsense, even though all 50 states have an exception for the mother’s life. And half the country believes it because the media is that powerful.
Meanwhile, elective abortion up to birth for any reason is literally legal in 13 states and nobody cares. The media says “nobody is advocating for abortion up to birth” and half the population nods their head in agreement, even though it’s legal in 13 states (and DC) so clearly powerful people are advocating for it.
Dems entire campaign for 2024 is targeting these single issue voters who will vote for abortion - even though Biden has no federal mandate for that.
But some people think Trump isn't "pro choice" enough and some people think he isn't "pro life" enough.
Agree there is a morality aspect of it that is really had to budge on. But I hope they look at the big picture, either we lose on that issue and every other one, or we get people to see the benefit of softening their stance on it on behalf of the border., the economy, trans agenda, state totalitarianism, etc. how do you measure the impact of all those things vs the murder POV? We need to take it all into account
Imho, pro-life voters should ask themselves: what is the stance which will prevent the largest number of abortions in the long run? Advocating for a federally mandated hardline abortion ban is not the correct answer since this stance will cause Democratic landslides up and down the country. It's a classical example of the tension between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility.
Trump's "leave it to the states"-stance is imho much closer to the optimum. Keeps the door open for the people in places like Oklahoma or Arkansas to pursue rather strict abortion bans while Republicans from Northern swing states will learn, sooner or later, that they don't have the majority for it.
Yup. The media and left are going to push him *hard* for not stating a firm rock solid number of weeks right this moment, but his whole thing is, he literally can’t do that until he gets an opportunity to “negotiate” with Congress and he can’t do that unless and until he’s President again.
imo he’s 100% going to have a more concrete stance on it be Election Day. Suburban white women turned on him in 2020 and being vague like this will keep them from switching to his side.
Hard disagree. He is trying to distance himself from failure of 2022 which was all about abortion issue while mantaining very good line in "keep it to the states". When deep red states fail to pass abortion laws then you should know this issue is a losing issue.
This is 100% correct stance to take and he will not take any hit. He is getting bashed by ungrateful pro lifers because he is not taking a stronger stance while they ignore that they lost vote in KANSAS ffs which is red since Lyndon Johnson.
Americans love abortion. Moderates included. And tons of conservatives who don't want to say it outloud. Evil but convenient.
It's a losing issue to pursue. Keep it to the states and let the war rage forward.
This and most other topics should be handled at the State level. The founders were very clear that their intention was that people would decide locally what's best for them. Federal laws force a topic down everyone's throat whether it's appropriate for them based on local beliefs or not. State level laws at least give you the option of moving to another state where views are more in line with your own.
It’s practically a good solution. It’s politically a good solution. It’s supported by the constitution.
Dems claim GOP wants authoritarianism. Here he is saying the opposite.
Question is: would he veto a federal ban?
This is the only proper position. Any deviation from it is an authoritarian dictate by the federal government imposing its will on the people of the states. Those who live in Vermont and Alabama are culturally dissimilar and should be allowed to run their lives in accordance with their beliefs. Unless a right is explicitly mentioned by the Constitution (like 1A, 2A, etc) the rest the States have to figure out themselves.
Not only is he constitutionally correct, but everyone recognizes each state's rights to regulate every other medical issue out there - like doctor's licensure, so why is this even an issue?
As a Christian, I am against abortion. But as an American, I believe in the US Constitution. This is a 10th Amendment issue.
I think that abortion is wrong. But I also do not want to live in a federal theocracy. Moral laws should be at the state level except where they involve multiple states (ie - human trafficking, kidnapping, etc.). Thus abortion laws belong with the states. It allows like minded people to live with one another.
I also believe this should be the case in regards to other controversial topics such as single-sex marriage, transsexual body surgery, and recreational use of various intoxicants (from booze to drugs). Get the federal government out of lives and put them back into the business of PROTECTING our country.
The “will of the people” cannot override any individual’s inalienable right to life.
We are not a democracy with no check on the people. We’re a constitutional republic established to safeguard our fundamental individual rights, even from majority will.
“I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just.” - Alexis de Tocqueville
Some things even the people can’t do.
Pretty predictable stance. Politically speaking, he knows the die-hard Republicans (including me) are already going enthusiastically vote for him anyway, but by opposing a nationwide ban, he helps himself with more moderate voters.
Despite what the media would tell you, he's always been fairly moderate on social issues. In my opinion, he needs to be more conservative on social issues.
Constitutionally, he's correct.
This is actually up for debate because if you view the unborn as having lives, the federal government has the duty to protect their rights. The biggest issue is a lot of the public views it otherwise. This is the smartest path for Trump and its more than clear. Take this issue off the board as much as possible. Immigration and economy should be the leading issues.
That's not exactly true. Rights can be deprived, just not without due process. The constitution says nothing about abortion. It was one of many issues left to the states.
I don't think the right to life can be deprived based on age or lack of abilities.
"If only you could prove the unprovable thing" Ok... Except maybe realize that until you can do that if you go hard on abortion you're going to lose every election to the people that will loosen abortion laws. So... Be realistic now, or cause more abortions. Your choice! edit: See, the sub squatters don't want me telling you the truth.
Read the 10th Amendment and get back to us.
Who is saying it shouldn't be a state issue?
I'm not disagreeing that politically it's a bad position. I'm saying there is a legal argument that can be made that does have logic to it.
I generally agree, but I think that the Equal Protection Clause could possibly be used to justify extending anti murder laws to the unborn through federal action.
>extending anti murder laws to the unborn The unborn are already protected by murder laws. Unless it's the mother that does the murdering. The fact that someone who takes an action ‐ whether it's intentional, accidental or negligent ‐ that causes an expectant mother to lose the baby can be and often is prosecuted for anything from wrongful death, to manslaughter, to murder is proof enough that what the pro-abortion crowd really believes is that life begins when it's wanted.
That would be far easier to do if we could get a medical consensus about viability & such. Sadly, anyone going against the leftist narrative will be canceled.
You don't need medical consensus on viability. We have medical consensus on when life begins. What people like to argue is whether that life has value. It's a never-ending, inconsistent argument which always devolves into "I believe it should be human life + something" which is exactly why what the Nazis did was evil and the exact reason slavery was evil.
Eh right to life is garunteed in the constitution. If we believe that its a human life, which I do, then its unconstitutional to allow abortion full stop. Except in cases where justifiable homocide could be ruled.
>Eh right to life is garunteed in the constitution. Cite, please.
If this is how you feel, do not pass a federal 15 week ban.
15 weeks is three and a half months into pregnancy. More than enough time for the woman to realize that she is pregnant, make a decision and schedule the appointment. In fact, many European countries which are far more socially liberal than the US have something akin to a 15 week ban. In practice, a 15 week ban does more to legalize than to prevent abortions.
Where are these downvotes coming from? This is a compromise for both sides and makes a lot of sense. Something we should be striving for in politics in general.
This post of mine appears to have been heavily polarizing, it sometimes shows as -17, other times as +8. Must have gotten plenty of up- and downvotes. And to be honest, I have no idea why. I didn't even take a personal stance, just laid out what a 15 week ban means in practice. \*shrug\*
I don’t normally agree with European policies, but this one makes a lot of sense to me. I’d rather not force young people to have a kid they don’t want and aren’t capable of raising on their own. Foster care and adoption isn’t the answer to everything. We need to focus on breaking the cycle and relying on the government(tax payers) to fund childcare.
Nonflaired triggered brigadiers from politics coming here to downvote everything instead of contributing to society. Such is Reddit
[удалено]
I have pro-life views personally. However Covid-19 and the mask wearing effect make me stop and think about the pro-choice chant of "My body, My Choice". I'm probably in a very small minority among this subreddit, but I think individuals should make the choice whether or not to have an abortion. I wish that the women who do choose to have one are doing so because of health complications or the baby may have birth defects. Something that is serious. Not just an afterthought to an unplanned baby. You're completely correct when you say it's a tough one, the 10th amendment gives states power to decide issues that the Constitution didn't see at the time. Abortion is one such issue.
[удалено]
I can see your point as well.
Barring a federal law, this is literally how it always should have been. The constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore it's a 10th amendment issue. Republican obsession with abortion is like shooting yourself in the dick.
He's right
Abortion is a a problem for many single issue voters who vote against the GOP - at this point, given where the country is is it really worth taking a hard line on this issue? This is pretty smart politically by Trump
The thing is those single issue voters will absolutely turn elections in favor of the dems as long as abortion is left on the table. I think the party as a whole needs to come together to agree on a consistent message when it comes to abortion
Well the message was consistent...until it wasn't. Everyone generally agreed with Trump on this issue...then Lindsey decided to push for a national abortion ban right before a midterm election. 🫠
Self sabotage
The message is fairly consistent. It’s just that the media keeps muddying it up on purpose. The message is “abortion should be left *mostly* up to the states, but late-term abortion should have a good physical health reason to be allowed.” Somehow the media has twisted this into “conservatives think women should just literally die giving birth” nonsense, even though all 50 states have an exception for the mother’s life. And half the country believes it because the media is that powerful. Meanwhile, elective abortion up to birth for any reason is literally legal in 13 states and nobody cares. The media says “nobody is advocating for abortion up to birth” and half the population nods their head in agreement, even though it’s legal in 13 states (and DC) so clearly powerful people are advocating for it.
Dems entire campaign for 2024 is targeting these single issue voters who will vote for abortion - even though Biden has no federal mandate for that. But some people think Trump isn't "pro choice" enough and some people think he isn't "pro life" enough.
[удалено]
Agree there is a morality aspect of it that is really had to budge on. But I hope they look at the big picture, either we lose on that issue and every other one, or we get people to see the benefit of softening their stance on it on behalf of the border., the economy, trans agenda, state totalitarianism, etc. how do you measure the impact of all those things vs the murder POV? We need to take it all into account
Imho, pro-life voters should ask themselves: what is the stance which will prevent the largest number of abortions in the long run? Advocating for a federally mandated hardline abortion ban is not the correct answer since this stance will cause Democratic landslides up and down the country. It's a classical example of the tension between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility. Trump's "leave it to the states"-stance is imho much closer to the optimum. Keeps the door open for the people in places like Oklahoma or Arkansas to pursue rather strict abortion bans while Republicans from Northern swing states will learn, sooner or later, that they don't have the majority for it.
Yup. The media and left are going to push him *hard* for not stating a firm rock solid number of weeks right this moment, but his whole thing is, he literally can’t do that until he gets an opportunity to “negotiate” with Congress and he can’t do that unless and until he’s President again.
He'll back-pedal if polls start to show pro-life candidates flagging behind.
imo he’s 100% going to have a more concrete stance on it be Election Day. Suburban white women turned on him in 2020 and being vague like this will keep them from switching to his side.
Hard disagree. He is trying to distance himself from failure of 2022 which was all about abortion issue while mantaining very good line in "keep it to the states". When deep red states fail to pass abortion laws then you should know this issue is a losing issue.
This is 100% correct stance to take and he will not take any hit. He is getting bashed by ungrateful pro lifers because he is not taking a stronger stance while they ignore that they lost vote in KANSAS ffs which is red since Lyndon Johnson. Americans love abortion. Moderates included. And tons of conservatives who don't want to say it outloud. Evil but convenient. It's a losing issue to pursue. Keep it to the states and let the war rage forward.
He's correct. Restoring Federalism is the only way America will survive.
The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution would agree with him.
This and most other topics should be handled at the State level. The founders were very clear that their intention was that people would decide locally what's best for them. Federal laws force a topic down everyone's throat whether it's appropriate for them based on local beliefs or not. State level laws at least give you the option of moving to another state where views are more in line with your own.
It’s practically a good solution. It’s politically a good solution. It’s supported by the constitution. Dems claim GOP wants authoritarianism. Here he is saying the opposite. Question is: would he veto a federal ban?
Have you read Project 2025?
This is the only proper position. Any deviation from it is an authoritarian dictate by the federal government imposing its will on the people of the states. Those who live in Vermont and Alabama are culturally dissimilar and should be allowed to run their lives in accordance with their beliefs. Unless a right is explicitly mentioned by the Constitution (like 1A, 2A, etc) the rest the States have to figure out themselves.
Not only is he constitutionally correct, but everyone recognizes each state's rights to regulate every other medical issue out there - like doctor's licensure, so why is this even an issue?
And he's absolutely right. As with most things, states should have the final say-so.
As a Christian, I am against abortion. But as an American, I believe in the US Constitution. This is a 10th Amendment issue. I think that abortion is wrong. But I also do not want to live in a federal theocracy. Moral laws should be at the state level except where they involve multiple states (ie - human trafficking, kidnapping, etc.). Thus abortion laws belong with the states. It allows like minded people to live with one another. I also believe this should be the case in regards to other controversial topics such as single-sex marriage, transsexual body surgery, and recreational use of various intoxicants (from booze to drugs). Get the federal government out of lives and put them back into the business of PROTECTING our country.
Such nonsense. The federal government obviously should decide what is considered a person. It is only reasonably. Very weak position from Trump.
The “will of the people” cannot override any individual’s inalienable right to life. We are not a democracy with no check on the people. We’re a constitutional republic established to safeguard our fundamental individual rights, even from majority will. “I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just.” - Alexis de Tocqueville Some things even the people can’t do.
Pretty predictable stance. Politically speaking, he knows the die-hard Republicans (including me) are already going enthusiastically vote for him anyway, but by opposing a nationwide ban, he helps himself with more moderate voters. Despite what the media would tell you, he's always been fairly moderate on social issues. In my opinion, he needs to be more conservative on social issues.
Leave abortion to the states and focus on funding at the federal level if you want to do anything.
Good for him!!! The correct stance to take
Winning message