Posted on 04/21/2016 10:32:44 AM PDT by writer33
Donald Trump said Thursday he would change the Republican Party platform's position on abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
Trump made the remarks during a town hall on the "Today" show on NBC on Thursday morning when host Savannah Guthrie asked him about abortion exceptions.
"The Republican platform every four years has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child should not be infringed," Guthrie said. "And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the (abortion) exceptions that you have?"
"Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely," Trump said. "For the three exceptions, I would."
Currently, the Republican platform abortion policy reads: "We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I agree. FR is going just wild over this (and you should note that GW Bush had the same exceptions in his pro-life position) and there's the bathroom thing. Have a look on the Net and see where anyone else is going as crazy over this as FR. The moderators should come in and freeze 90% of these excessive, hysterical threads. I disagree with Trump on the bathrooms and even on these exceptions on abortion, but it doesn't change the fact that I still support him. Clearly, this is a slow news day for people to be getting this worked up.
That will come.
I support the one exception, the life of the mother. Since this is a form of self defense, it is not immoral. However, it is rare in this day and age for obstetricians to have to choose one life over the other. I do not believe rape and incest should be exceptions.
However, there is another question here besides the moral question, and that is this:
Why do Republicans constantly force their Presidential candidates to answer “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” social issue questions? The result is that in order to be nominated, a candidate must publicly prove how conservative he is by taking a position which will prohibit him from being elected. It’s just stupid. The stupid party.
Sure, we want a conservative President, but we should be better at picking up signals when our front runner is needing to focus on the general election.
Here’s an example from one of the debates:
Trump: Repeal and replace Obamacare with a private sector plan.
Moderator: What about poor that can’t afford a plan?
Trump: We wouldn’t let them die on the sidewalk.
Moderator: Who would pay for that?
Trump: The government would take care of those people.
Cruz: So, Donald wants socialized medicine, just like Obamacare.
I say give Trump (and the others) some wiggle room when being forced to answer the gotcha questions from the left. He already said he wanted to appoint someone like Scalia to the SCOTUS, and that is the closest he’ll ever get to influencing abortion policy.
“How can he execute a unborn innocent baby?”
Because he’s a total fake who has no G-d but himself.
I would just like this moment to sink in for all the Trumpers to realize either:
A) They are suckers
or
B) They are not conservatives.
Just noticed two most pro-life news sites on the internet, Drudge and Breitbart being deafeningly quiet about this.
Shame on them. They are putting Donald-freaking-Trump above their moral center.
“Trump seems to not be all that interested in protecting the weak an innocent, seems he might be more interested in having a really hot piece of a$$.”
Trump has helped plenty of weak and innocent. do you need to be spoonfed a list?
Show us a vet or a child that Cruz has helped.
I believe this was reagan’s view also.
I agree that it’s a done deal, though I despise this country for what it has become. I can’t think of single leftist plank that has ever been enacted then overturned. So, the country is headed to hell. As a Christian, I mean that literally.
Trump has had the same position on abortion for years. The only new thing is you proving you are not informed and gullible apparently.
No. No. Hell no.
We can't have any further movement on this until we all agree that 14 year old victims of Muslim rapists are required to carry to full term.
"Compromise" is defeat!
What's the platform say now ?
Would the proposed changes make it more or less likely that abortion other than in the cases covered by exemptions would be ended?
The majority of abortion could be ended with the exceptions in place, IMHo, based on how public opinion has changed. Without that much political cover the cowards that end up being our "representatives" will never even try.
Pretend what you like but defeating an enemy in detail isn't evil.
The bathroom thing, though another very disturbing indicator of our headlong cultural plunge towards Sodom and Gomorrah status, will have little real effect.
With a transgender population of 0.001%, what are the odds that one of them is actually going to walk in on you?
They both have excuses.
Roger Stone is a slimeball.
Phyllis is 91.
Some of the TExas legislation was blocked by SCOTUS.
But hey, illegal legislation is cool right?
Reagan 1.0 signed a bill allowing abortion in the case of rape/incest or to save a mother's life as Governor of CA. He found abortion repellent, but like the majority of people probably thought that telling a woman she had to have her rapist's child is equally repellent.
“make him more unpalatable to the unwashed. “
Who are the washed?
Who is Trump to follow Reagan’s lead?
Good, thoughtful post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.