Thread: Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is Settled Law, Abortion Isn’t

In my opinion, we have killed too many wonderful people through abortion. People who would have done great things and who would have loved and been loved. So sad.

Late term abortions and to kill a baby just before it is delivered doesn't speak well of us as human beings, created by God.

The debate about abortion is really about birth control and the Catholic Church's prohibitions against it. The power of the Catholic Church to create and sustain the narrative about abortion continue to obscure its continuing loss of authority in this matter. The Pill, the birth control hormone treatment that so many women use induces menstruation even when an egg is fertilized. It aborts the fertilized egg that would otherwise mature, to first an embryo, then a fetus which then matures to the point where it is born to become an infant. This is abortion to those opposed to abortion on moral grounds.

RU486 and other such morning after pills apply the same principles outside the scheduled regimen of the birth control pills except that the dosage and maybe the hormone itself are not preventative, but are introduced after the pregnancy is detected. For "Pro Life" advocates, there is no significant difference. Inducing menstruation after a pregnancy has been detected is more problematic to the biology of the woman, the more developed the embryo, the more complicated is the resumption of menstruation. There is lot more tissue involved and the medical consequences are increasingly risky. The more developed the embryo, the more developed is the supporting cardiovascular structure linking the woman's biology to the tissue of the embryo or fetus. I don't know the details of allowed applications of the morning after pill, but after a certain level of development in the fetus, it might be too risky to try to induce menstruation. After a certain point, what you are really doing is inducing a miscarriage. A physical abortion where the physician actually applies a vacuum or something to the contents of the uterus might be safer.

But the point remains, morning after pills take abortion away from the control of the state because no doctor is involved. If this becomes a state's issue so that abortion is outlawed in these states, then it is more likely that morning after pills will cross state lines then women will.

And late term abortions are a straw dog to the issue. The only time late term abortions recommended by physicians is the well know case of prenatal hydrocephalus where the head of the fetus becomes swollen and hardened with fluid so that trying to pass it out of the woman's vagina becomes a threat to the woman's health and reproductive tissue. Otherwise, the only real safe thing to do for the woman who is this advanced in a pregnancy is to give birth.

My position is people can change their position about abortion. Judy your ideas and position on abortion are what many of us feared. It was never intended to be a form of birth control.

There is a big difference between a woman deciding at say at 7 months to have an abortion because of convenience and a woman having to choose her life over her babies because her embryonic sac is infected.

Like so many things we seem to go from one extreme to another. It just tics me off to have lived and fought for rights, weighing the pros and cons and to now see our intentions bastardized. This is exactly why many have changed our positions.

So maybe your fight for rights wasn't really about the rights but your opinion of how much rights someone should have to ensure they please your version of whatever it is. It's like 2nd Amendment people who believe in background checks, gun registration, waiting periods, permits for concealed carry, etc., etc., etc. The Constitution says in plain English, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means no infringement, no background checks, no gun registration, no waiting periods, no permits to carry a concealed weapon.

Some Americans seem lost on what a right is.

The point Trump made at the last debate is late term abortion is wrong and he made an excellent point that helped him win the election.

What the right has become needs adjusting into a decent very early prevention or removal if the woman chooses such, especially with a damaged fetus or rape victim. Curtailing the time period will make women more proactive in preventing and men should be more responsible too as she doesn't impregnate herself.

Men will not control a woman's choice. There are over 7 billion people in the world and growing every day - reality check.

“Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.”
― Edward Abbey

President-Elect Donald Trump: “I’m Pro-Life, The Judges Will be Pro-Life”

NATIONAL STEVEN ERTELT NOV 14, 2016 | 11:54AM WASHINGTON, DC

In an interview with 60 Minutes on CBS over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump reconfirmed his commitment to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Trump said he is pro-life and that the judges he would nominee would be pro-life as well.

The future of the Supreme Court is probably the most important issue for pro-life voters and was prominent on their minds during this past presidential election has Trump pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, who promised to name judges who would continue another four decades of abortion.

Here’s more:

President-elect Donald Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with “60 Minutes” that his role of appointing a Supreme Court justice is “very important” — and that he plans to appoint pro-life justices.

“I’m pro-life,” he said. “The judges will be pro-life.”

Asked specifically whether he wants the Supreme Court to repeal the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, Trump replied that if the decision were overturned the issue of abortion would be decided by each state.

“If it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states,” he said.

But does that mean some women would be unable to receive abortions, assuming their home states ban them? Asked to clarify, Trump replied: “Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.”

When Stahl followed up on the question, asking whether it’s okay that some women might have to travel to other states to receive abortions, Trump said there’s a “long way to go” before discussing that.

“Well, we’ll see what happens,” he said. “It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.”

During the campaign Trump promised to appoint the kinds of judges to the Supreme Court that would please pro-life voters. The candidate released two separate lists of potential Supreme Court nominees, both of which went over well with pro-life voters and organizations. Leading pro-life groups will undoubtedly will keep up pressure on Trump as he will take office with the ability to already appoint one member of the Supreme Court following the death of pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia.

In an opinion column published before the election at USA Today, Trump also put the spotlight on the Supreme Court which is probably the number one issue in this election for pro-life voters.

The Supreme Court has the potential to keep abortion legal for four more decades resulting in the deaths of another fifty to sixty million and more children.

I will restore the constitutional rule of law and nominate Supreme Court justices who will do the same.

During the presidential debate Donald Trump made it very clear that he will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court who would be likely to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision that has led to 58 million abortions.

Trump said he is pro-life and the kinds of Judges he would put on the nation’s highest court are those that would be the kind pro-life voters would appreciate. For pro-life voters, the Supreme Court is probably the most important election issue this year as the nation’s highest court could control the fate of abortion for decades to come and whether another 58 million abortions happen or if unborn children will eventually enjoy legal protection.

“The Supreme Court – it’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, just so imperative that we have the right justices,” Trump said. ” I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.“

Trump talked about the kind of temperament that is best for a potential Supreme Court justice to have.

“They are great scholars in all cases, and they are people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have the justices appointed that decide what they want to hear,” he said. “It’s all about the Constitution of — and so important — the Constitution, the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint. “

Asked if Roe v. wade would be overturned by judges Trump would appoint, he said that would be the case.
“Well, if that would happen because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges,” Trump said. “Well if we put another two or perhaps three justices on that’s really what’s going to be — that will happen. It’ll happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/14/p...l-be-pro-life/

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

My position is people can change their position about abortion. Judy your ideas and position on abortion are what many of us feared. It was never intended to be a form of birth control.

There is a big difference between a woman deciding at say at 7 months to have an abortion because of convenience and a woman having to choose her life over her babies because her embryonic sac is infected.

Like so many things we seem to go from one extreme to another. It just tics me off to have lived and fought for rights, weighing the pros and cons and to now see our intentions bastardized. This is exactly why many have changed our positions.

Well said.

The only "position" that should count is that of the pregnant girl or woman.

The only position that should count ts the pregnant girl or woman! That has to be about the coldest comment I have ever heard. Have you ever met a child who had a parent that wanted to abort them?

I have, and I will never forget the terror in the eyes of that young lady as she screamed "you wanted to murder me" at her parent.

She grew into a beautiful person. She puts her life on the line, for others everyday, but has never spoken to her parents since she decided abortion is murder.

So, no both parents and the unborn childs position should all count.

The unborn fetus has no position. The male has no position unless the girl or woman wants him to have one. If you think that's cold, I could care less. This country is running over full to the brim beyond our ability to sustain the population because of overpopulation due to over-breeding by those who can least afford it. The last thing any sensible "conservative" person should want to do is exploit government to exploit pregnant girls and women by forcing them into childbirth against their will. Whatever pro-life you exercise in your own life is fine with me. But when you want to pull in the force of government to meddle in the personal private affairs of our female citizens based on your personal view and force them into childbirth against their will, then you have overstepped your bounds, exceeded all levels of decency and become a barbarian.

In my opinion.