ADVERTISEMENT

Trump vows to find compromise on abortion

So do you support abortion or not, do you want republicans to compromise or not?
Roe v. Wade was a compromise.

The four conservative Supreme Court justices who devised and voted for the Roe v, Wade tri-mester framework, especially Harry Blackmun (a staunch conservative who wrote the majority opinion who was appointed by Nixon), made this abundantly clear.

Also, it appears that the Republican’s “leave it up to the states” battle cry which supposedly justified overturning Roe has been abandoned.
 
Last polling I saw on this said that I er 70% of Americans agreed with some sort of 15 week ban, so to answer your question...the left wouldn't agree to that, however the moderate Democrats would.
I did a quick google search and found that 74% of Americans believe it should be legal early in pregnancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
I did a quick google search and found that 74% of Americans believe it should be legal early in pregnancy.
Gallup has polled support for Roe v. Wade every year since 1973. The results have been remarkablly consistent. Support for the Roe decision has never polled less than 60%, now 50 consecutive years, most years above 62% approval approaching a 2/3 majority.
 
I think it's completely insane that any liberal would think it's possible to find some viable "compromise" on abortion with Donald J Trump and his party. It's like thinking it was possible to come up with some viable compromise with Hitler at Munich.

If Trump wins, the Republicans are also going to have a trifecta and they are going to ban abortion. Liberals believing and talking as if Trump and his party can be "compromised" with on this issue are probably going to be major contributors to the Republicans winning in 24 if they continue with this nonsense.
 
The concept of viability was a cornerstone of the Roe v. Wade decision. Harry Blackmun, the conservative justice who authored Roe, spent a lot of time at the Mayo Clinic before drafting the abortion rights decision.
 
When it's viable outside the mothers body which is around 22-24 weeks. However 6 weeks, which Rs want, isn't even close. There is no functionality with any system at that point
I agree with that. I do not support a 6 week ban at all.

But there is still gray area, because as medical treatment advances, it may become possible for a 20 week old baby to survive.

Here is a 21 week old that survived.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
I agree with that. I do not support a 6 week ban at all.

But there is still gray area, because as medical treatment advances, it may become possible for a 20 week old baby to survive.

Here is a 21 week old that survived.
Which is what Roe was all about. It considered advances in science. But the Rs destroyed all of that
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed and nu2u
Which is what Roe was all about. It considered advances in science. But the Rs destroyed all of that
I don't know about you, but the supreme court didn't ask for my thoughts when determining the outcome of roe v wade. So while I am a republican, I did not destroy anything.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris and nu2u
I agree with that. I do not support a 6 week ban at all.

But there is still gray area, because as medical treatment advances, it may become possible for a 20 week old baby to survive.

Here is a 21 week old that survived.
Which is why I’m okay with a sliding scale of sorts if that makes sense. If woman comes in at say 21 weeks and tests determine the fetus is viable, that changes things.
 
I don't know about you, but the supreme court didn't ask for my thoughts when determining the outcome of roe v wade. So while I am a republican, I did not destroy anything.
Conservative, Republican-appointed justices established the constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. A majority Republican-appointed Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

What changed?

The Republican Party became radicalized, dominated by religious zealots.
 
Conservative, Republican-appointed justices established the constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. A majority Republican-appointed Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

What changed?

The Republican Party became radicalized, dominated by religious zealots.
Trump has come out saying he wants to find a compromise, so it seems like Trump is not one of those radicalized religious zealot.
 
also….. Trump is back with his trademark “two weeks” dodge which is a sure sign that he has no clue which way to go in order to gain political advantage.

He will not take a principled position and it definitely will not happen in two weeks.
 
I'd frankly be fine with a ban, other than during weeks 12-24. There is this viewpoint on the right that abortion is nothing more than a different form of birth control. Frankly there are so many people who desperately want children and have had to have unwanted abortions, because they actually wanted the child, but due to an issue with health, had to have an abortion.

I had a close friend, very religious, deliver a baby born with Trisomy 18. I would not wish this on my worst enemy. They carried the baby to full term, knowing it would live no more than a few hours. I would never ever question a family who had an abortion in that situation. I've neve seen such sorrow in my life. Again, this is not something you detect really until that 20 week ultrasound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82
Which is what Roe was all about. It considered advances in science. But the Rs destroyed all of that

"can we compromise on the original popular status quo? You should come our way even though our way gets its ass handed to it every single time it is put on a ballot - its where most Americans aren't afterall"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
I don't know about you, but the supreme court didn't ask for my thoughts when determining the outcome of roe v wade. So while I am a republican, I did not destroy anything.
At least complicit if you voted for Trump in 2016. He did what he said he was going to do.
 
Hey…faulty with yet another false equivalency!!! You can’t stop yourself or even see it.
Yeah. I know you support 14 year olds having to be exposed to 18 year old cocks in locker rooms. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a woman’s rights issue for those dealing with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
Yeah. I know you support 14 year olds having to be exposed to 18 year old cocks in locker rooms. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a woman’s rights issue for those dealing with it.
You’re an idiot. You can’t stop yourself. You’re also bigoted against trans people. That now is obvious. False equivalency bigot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
The dog caught the car after 50 years of chasing it, and now the GOP is desperately trying to figure out how to triangulate their way out of this issue.
Yep. And there is no reasonable compromise for the hardcore Republican base. Millions want a total ban or a constructive total ban. No way they will be happy to accept a 15/16 week ban.
 
This is not a black or white issue, there are variations of gray.

I can't entirely agree, abortion is a black and white issue, either you support a woman's right to choose or you are against abortions. Once a person is willing to allow abortion before x number of weeks or considers exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother they are stating they are for abortion, but only when they feel good about it. Everyone's life and circumstances are different which is why abortion should be available to women in any circumstance as that is a medical decision a woman should be able to choose without government interference.

A person can/should have a moral compass that moves them to educate people about life choices, the benefits of adoption, and the pain of late-term abortions. Still, they shouldn't agree to government restrictions on a woman's right to choose because it makes them feel better or they are trying to get elected.
 
I can't entirely agree, abortion is a black and white issue, either you support a woman's right to choose or you are against abortions. Once a person is willing to allow abortion before x number of weeks or considers exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother they are stating they are for abortion, but only when they feel good about it. Everyone's life and circumstances are different which is why abortion should be available to women in any circumstance as that is a medical decision a woman should be able to choose without government interference.

A person can/should have a moral compass that moves them to educate people about life choices, the benefits of adoption, and the pain of late-term abortions. Still, they shouldn't agree to government restrictions on a woman's right to choose because it makes them feel better or they are trying to get elected.
Well put. But I believe the ones trying to make themselves feel better are the ones trying to convince themselves that they aren’t murdering a baby. I believe they are. AND I also believe it should be legal. But I’m not going to pretend that just because I think a woman should be allowed to do it doesn’t mean it isn’t an awful thing happening.
 
Well put. But I believe the ones trying to make themselves feel better are the ones trying to convince themselves that they aren’t murdering a baby. I believe they are. AND I also believe it should be legal. But I’m not going to pretend that just because I think a woman should be allowed to do it doesn’t mean it isn’t an awful thing happening.
This position is hopelessly conflicted.

You believe abortion is murder.

By definition, murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.

In the very next sentence you state that abortion should be legal.

By definition, murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.

There is no way to maintain your stated position that abortion is murder unless you (a) allow that the fetus is not human (“human”being an essential element of murder) or (b) acknowledge that abortion is not murder (unlawful being an essential element of murder). Otherwise your position cannot be reconciled.

BTW, the foregoing is what Harry Blackmun wrestled with for months when drafting the legal framework for the Roe decision.
 
This position is hopelessly conflicted.

You believe abortion is murder.

By definition, murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.

In the very next sentence you state that abortion should be legal.

By definition, murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.

There is no way to maintain your stated position that abortion is murder unless you (a) allow that the fetus is not human (“human”being an essential element of murder) or (b) acknowledge that abortion is not murder (unlawful being an essential element of murder). Otherwise your position cannot be reconciled.

BTW, the foregoing is what Harry Blackmun wrestled with for months when drafting the legal framework for the Roe decision.
You’re hung up on the wrong thing. Replace murder with “killing a human”. Better? And before you rant, remember what Kevorkian does. Or pulling a plug. Both of which I also think should be legal.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT