Trump privately supporting 16 week abortion ban

[bmw]

TC Talks believes it should be.

I support safe abortions. Feel free to continue to make up the rest like you tend to do.

I'm making it up? So you do support some restrictions on abortions? What specific restrictions would those be?

[TC Talks]

I support safe abortions. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Why do you think it's acceptable for children to die by guns?

You have done nothing to stop or restrict assault weapons, and they are only built to kill in mass.

BTW, I have never had an abortion

[km1125]

Safe for who... the baby??

[TC Talks]

Safe for who... the baby??

Guns can kill babies, abortions can not.

[Turkeytop]

Just for the record, if anyone is interested, I'm opposed to abortion on moral grounds. If the woman was someone in my life,, I would try to talk her out of it. But, in the end, it's a decision to be made by the woman and her Doctor.

Neither I, nor the state, has the right to impose my morality on others.

[teetoppz28]

MAGAt small-minded thoughts:

Vaccines? My body, my choice!
Abortions? Your body, my choice!

You can’t have it both ways…

[bmw]

MAGAt small-minded thoughts:

Vaccines? My body, my choice!
Abortions? Your body, my choice!

You can’t have it both ways…

So in your view, do pro-choice Democrats who support vaccine mandates also have small minds?

[bmw]

I support safe abortions. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Why do you think it's acceptable for children to die by guns?

You have done nothing to stop or restrict assault weapons, and they are only built to kill in mass.

BTW, I have never had an abortion

This isn't about guns. You keep bringing guns into this conversation and keep stonewalling my question. Typical tactics by you.

I'll ask you a different question since you outright refuse to answer the one I'm asking. From the perspective of the unborn, at what precise moment in time does that being become a living being worthy of Constitutional protections?

[TC Talks]

Well, the moment the state recognizes it as a human. A Birth Certificate is the conventional indicator. But under the Republican perspective (and possibly Catholics given recent sexual abuse denials) children are less valuable than fetuses.

This discussion is all about morals, and Gun violence is certainly a core moral issue. These two issues are very related.

[teetoppz28]

MAGAt small-minded thoughts:

Vaccines? My body, my choice!
Abortions? Your body, my choice!

You can’t have it both ways…

So in your view, do pro-choice Democrats who support vaccine mandates also have small minds?

110%

[Rate This]

I support safe abortions. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Why do you think it's acceptable for children to die by guns?

You have done nothing to stop or restrict assault weapons, and they are only built to kill in mass.

BTW, I have never had an abortion

This isn't about guns. You keep bringing guns into this conversation and keep stonewalling my question. Typical tactics by you.

I'll ask you a different question since you outright refuse to answer the one I'm asking. From the perspective of the unborn, at what precise moment in time does that being become a living being worthy of Constitutional protections?

Viability would be the general rule of thumb. But birth defects and still birth are exceptions. Carrying a dead baby to term instead of ending it at 7 or 8 months seems cruel and may be unsafe.

[bmw]

MAGAt small-minded thoughts:

Vaccines? My body, my choice!
Abortions? Your body, my choice!

You can’t have it both ways…

So in your view, do pro-choice Democrats who support vaccine mandates also have small minds?

110%

See though, that in and if itself is a small-minded view.

I'm a firm believer in the harm principle, which basically says I am free to do whatever I want unless my actions cause harm to other people. So I view both of these topics through that lens. In the case of vaccines, the only compelling reason the government has to force vaccines in in situations where someone not getting a vaccine poses a significant threat to others. In the case of highly contagious diseases that have a high risk of harming others, there actually is the case to be made for forced vaccinations. The problem with the Covid vaccine specifically is that it wasn't actually slowing the spread of Covid in any significant way. Moreover, the mortality rate is well under 1 percent. Combining those 2 factors together led me to the belief that my right to not get the vaccine outweighed the government's interest in forcing me to get it.

Applying the harm principle to the abortion issue, the question becomes whether an abortion causes harm to others. And how you view that depends on what value you attach to an unborn child. If your view is that an unborn child does not become a human until the moment of birth, then your pro-choice view passes the harm test. But different people have very different views on when that unborn child is deserving of legal rights. Some believe it is at conception. Some believe it is when there is a heartbeat. Some believe it is wh en consciousness begins. Some believe it is at viability. Some believe it is at the moment of birth. And people even have different views on when viability happens. But essentially, it is a balancing test between the mother's rights and the unborn's rights and how you weigh those rights against each other. MY problem with the entire debate is that I find the moment of birth as arbitrary as any other possible point (conception, viability, etc). What is so special about that moment beyond the fact that the child is no longer inside of the mother? The baby still won't be forming memories for about another 5-6 months, so why not legalize murder in the first 5 months after birth? I mean, the baby is ultimately just the property of the mother, isn't it? That is, after all, how most pro-choice people view the unborn prior to brith.

So your little mantra up there is the epitome of small-minded thinking.

As an aside, just to entertain TCT's bringing up of the gun debate, the same principle applies there. If someone owning a gun poses a significant threat to society, then the government can make a compelling case to prohibit such ownership. The challenge is sorting out which people do and do not pose significant threats as the vast majority of gun owners pose no such threat.

[bmw]

Viability would be the general rule of thumb. But birth defects and still birth are exceptions. Carrying a dead baby to term instead of ending it at 7 or 8 months seems cruel and may be unsafe.

Obviously a stillbirth would qualify as an exception as, (without sounding insensitive here), a dead baby is a dead baby. The abortion is not the act that is killing that baby.

[bmw]

Just me personally, I find the point of conception to be an unrealistic view of when something attains rights under the Constitution - and certainly any such rights would not outweigh the rights of the mother. But I also find the moment of birth to be way too late.

Ultimately, abortion is one of those issues that splits Americans fairly evenly, and unlike in the gun control debate whereby public opinion over the past 30 years has shifted more towards being pro-gun ownership, the abortion needle hasn't really budged at all. Somewhere around week 15 or 20 of the pregnancy seems like a reasonable place for our society to be - that as a mother, if you've decided to carry on with the pregnancy for that long, at that point the unborn baby is developed enough that its right to make it to birth outweighs your right to kill it.

[km1125]

And to complicate the issue, why do some babies "earn" the protection from the state because the medical system intervened in the course of normal pregnancy via caesarean delivery, while others (similarly in their development stage) do not get those protections until after natural birth?