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 ...
In other words, if Trump says it, it’s okay.
Gotcha.
Oh yes. It was one of the dumbest comments Trump has made. I just want to smack him upside the head for it.
It’s not a game-changer for me though.
"Seeking a federal assertion of a right to life for the unborn is a legitimate objective in our federalism.”
The states not only need to amend the Constitution to expressly protect the right to life of unborn children, but the states also need to get pro-abortion activist judges and justices off of the bench because they’re going to pervert such a protection.
As I’ve ranted in related threads, I think that the 19th Amendment (19A), which effectively gave women the right to vote, has been instrumental in fostering the PC right to have an abortion, therefore helping the corrupt federal government to unconstitutionally expand its powers.
More specifically, and with all due respect to women, actually everybody needs to learn about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. This is because it can be argued that the only thing that 19A won for women is to give them a voice in running the US Mail Service (1.8.7) where domestic policy is concerned.
In other words, everybody needs to get a grip on the idea that most federal domestic policy outside the scope of the US Mail Service, the PC right to have an abortion an excellent example, is based on 10th Amendment-proteced state powers which the corrupt feds have stolen from the states.
“why does PP protect rapists and permit them to continue their crimes?”
Because they’re evil.
>>Cruz favors limited government, cutting spending, repealing crap like Obamacare, rescinding BHO’s executive orders, following the law, turning welfare, education, and other social spending back to the states, abolishing the IRS, going to a reasonable flat tax, he also supports the FAIR Tax. I think this all a reasonable start. No major candidate is closer to the US Constitution than Ted Cruz. Certainly not Trump, Kasich, HRC, or BS.
“Favoring” something is like being a fan. It doesn’t really affect the outcome of the game at all. Every one of those things you listed “should” be done, but how? How does he get rid of the IRS and go to the FAIRTax without the Amendment process? How do you end welfare without finding a way to gainfully employ everyone? When you cut spending, do you agree that ALL spending needs cut and not just the programs that you don’t like?
Everything starts with controlling immigration and outsourcing jobs. EVERYTHING. What is the Cruz plan for immigration? What is his plan to preserve American tech jobs and service jobs?
The more votes he gets, the more he moves to the left......and whines louder about Cruz “stealing” his votes.
ything
==
R’s been using abortion on us for years, and how, outside of raising funds and riling us up with promises, what have they done. ZILCH, and their not gonna do anything if it might jeapardize a seat.
Trump being honest again. And might just get traction against what even some liberals find offensive. Partial birth and its profiteering.
-—I don’t know of anyone who would say you would have to keep and raise the child - adoption is a wonderful option in a case like that.
.
My wife should be forced to carry the result of a rape around for 9 months. Only a nutbag would think she should.
.
.
.
.
-—Surprise, surprise - anyone who couldn’t tell you were not a conservative
.
My days of trying to assimilate into the cool club in high school are long over. Keep your label.
The problem is that the wording would not be specific to a situation where the mother’s life is REALLY in danger.
If it was written properly, it would be a hard choice to make.
Save the baby or the mother.
New York values.
1. None of the above advocated changing the Party Platform.
2. None of the above changed their positions 4 times in a few weeks.
>> A) They are suckers or B) They are not conservatives There’s that holier than thou condescension
Thanks! But in all fairness, that one is not mine; it’s Jewbacca’s.
MINE replaces “or” with “and”, as in “Trump supporters are suckers AND they are not conservatives”.
I remember the original well meaning folks against abortion.
They totally had a big hand in the millions that died because they fought this going for the 100% or nothing. They got us nothing.
Instead of saving the 99.5% and working to later save the rest.
Many insisted their morality could not let them do that so instead they all died. What a plan!
Even today we could win the no abortion past the first trimester. 70% think that is reasonable by polls, so where is that movement?
Nowhere because it is again ALL or nothing.
The logic behind the tragic results could be called what?
I have to be honest and call it stupid.
I am a Christian but can’t see getting millions killed for my self righteousness.
We are in a war against God and American values. We have to win battles everywhere to win a war.
You start smaller and move in for more later as you can.
Conservatives, Christians and Jews need to get more active if they don’t like the courts and politics.
>>That portion of the electorate which is “grounded in conservative principles” as you put it is a rapidly shrinking piece of the pie.
That’s what they don’t understand. Every middle class working person has seen a close friend, family member, and/or themselves destroyed by the economy that is beholden to the Cheap Labor Express. Its hard to be that rock-ribbed “Consistent Conservative” when people that matter to you are having to apply for welfare or unemployment for the first time in 20-40 years of working their asses off.
The typical Cruz supporter is the person that liberals say that we are: “you care so much about an unborn baby, but once he’s born, he’s on his own if his parents aren’t rich.”
It's still around. But it's infested with liberals with conservatives being chased off on a daily basis. Oh, and the quarterly FReepathons last nearly three months now.
Yet no one seems to make the connection why.
If you actually read the article it doesnt say abortions are mandated to save the womans lives, it says these conditions may be ones where it might save the womans life. Women in high risk pregnancies can make it through without abortion, they do all the time. Doctors offer no guarantee aborting the baby will let mom survive, and they are not done in 100% of these cases.
Further there is a difference if they remove a baby early and try to save both mom and baby, as opposed to removing baby and doing nothing for it. One is a life saving procedure for the mom, while attemtping to save both mom and baby; the other is just a blatant abortion.
I agree with Donald on this. So did Ronald Reagan.
Saving Life of mother is the priority. However rape definition is squishy these days. Forcible rape yes allow statutory rape no disallow.
Incest is almost always forcible rape of a minor. Allow.
It is only 'holier-than-thou' if YOU want 60,000,000 dead babies, gay marriage and men free to enter your woman's restroom.
If that's what you like, then yes, they are 'holier-than-thou'.
So? Exceptions for rape and health of the mother was the exact same abortion platform that Bush had in 2000. Non-story.
Can you imagine? Yet if a FReeper took Trump's current pro-abortion position just 6 months ago - Jim Rob would have zotted him personally.
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.