TRUMP TWEETS against ‘fake news Sunday political shows,’ and AGAINST pro-life bills!?

El Presidente Trumpo continued a rant he started on Saturday night this Sunday morning.

He ripped into the “fake news Sunday political shows” this morning:



And yesterday he warned against the bills that are making their way to the Supreme Court banning abortion without an exception for incest or rape!!!

This is a little bizarre because he has derided Reagan in the past for not being an actual conservative, but here he is citing him as if he’s the patron saint of politics. In any case, it shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s not down with the cause of completely wiping out abortion, as he used to be pro-choice. And I’m sure his base will forgive him for it….

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

318 thoughts on “TRUMP TWEETS against ‘fake news Sunday political shows,’ and AGAINST pro-life bills!?

  1. I don’t even consider that Alabama law truly against abortion because they know it’s not going to be taken up by the Supremes and will be overturned fast.

    So what’s the point? To get on the record, without fixing anything, I find that reprehensible! It’s fake, and it’s why there is still abortion, because everyone is virtue signaling showing how much better they are than others, and doing NOTHING!

    Empty virtue signaling is worse than nothing.

    1. We will see. It is public knowledge that the purpose of the Alabama law is that it leaves zero wiggle room for the court on the question of LIFE. They are forcing a ruling on that single subject. I am not sure as you as to how it is going to go.

    2. @cookiebob It’s far more strategic than that. It’s a legislative attempt to get the Supreme Court to *find* that a fetus is a human being.

      The logic behind it is impeccable. Even if it somehow resulted in the most draconian level of enforcement, which I doubt, it’s a solid effort to begin righting what Roe v. Wade made so very wrong.

      And I take a pure Federalism position on the issue. So I do not support a national ban, just like I wouldn’t support the federal government subsuming state laws on murder, rape, and fraud.

    3. The more states pass laws against abortion, the more likely it is that the Supreme Court will be forced to realize that America doesn’t see Roe v. Wade as “settled law.” I’ve been amazed at the recent turn of events and hope pro-life states keep them coming.

  2. The guy just takes every side of an issue and lets his minions fight it out. That being said, this is all about posturing for 2020 elections

  3. I have no problem with his abortion tweet. He’s laying out his personal opinion, which is different from mine. But I think his is the most likely position to be taken by SCOTUS if they overturn Roe v Wade.

  4. Speaking of Ronald Reagan… “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
    September 21, 1980, Presidential Debate in Baltimore.

    1. Brilliant! We should demand a poll of the opinions of those still in the womb on abortion.

      1. I think the fact that they are living, growing and becoming vital second by second tells us how they would be voting. Life does not thrive if it is against itself living.

  5. If you are in a classic, heated topic discussion, here’s a pro tip:

    Ignore any replies or arguments that begin with any form of, “So what you’re saying is…”

    It’s like a big warning sign… “Strawman Ahead”

    1. It’s called conversation. It’s short hand for, “What I hear you saying is….” The question is trying to illicit clarification of a position. What I read from your statement is that you don’t want your statements and positions questioned or clarified.

  6. but here he is citing him as if he’s the patron saint of politics.

    It doesn’t help that people are affirming him in that.

    1. Literally no is affirming him in that.

      The fact that Trump treats politics like a rat with a chainsaw treats a maze is why he has so many fans.

      1. Progressives always revere their leaders like holy men, Bob. That’s why they make so many excuses for them, rationalize their every word and deed, and assert his genius at every turn (even when it makes no sense at all). They did the same thing to Barack. No matter what he said or did, to his followers he could do no wrong.

        1. “They” are the ones being broomed aside. Don’t mistake people being thrilled with Trump’s actions as being the same as Obama’s lemmings.

          That would mean you have completely ignored all of the incredibly over-the-top anger he generates whenever he indicates any willingness to support liberal left positions on anything.

        2. So you’re waiting for the second coming before supporting anyone? After all, nobody is perfect, not even you.

  7. This is a little bizarre because he has derided Reagan in the past for not being an actual conservative

    How is it bizarre? It’s Trump. Consistency isn’t his strong suit.

  8. The perfect is the enemy of the good. I also believe life begins at conception, but if we could get to the point of ending abortions except for these rare cases, think of the millions of lives that would be saved!

    That fight would still go on, it would not be over.

    1. Legislating always involves prudential judgements, so an all-or-nothing approach isn’t necessary. But we shouldn’t back away from arguing against the rape and incest exceptions for two reasons. First, babies conceived in rape and incest are still babies –human beings whose lives deserve protection. Secondly, initial pro-life legislation with rape and incest exceptions can be positioned as a compromise or “middle” position, while the rape and incest loopholes could be closed later.

      1. It’s the Overton Window strategy which the Left has used against us for years.

    2. If those cases are so rare, they may as well be included. You either believe the scientific fact that human life starts with conception or you don’t. When you start making exceptions you find yourself on a slope, and the bottom of that slope has led to politicians giving serious consideration to terminating life after the infant is born.

  9. Ok Soop, you’re being a little unfair here and disingenuous in my opinion. Being against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother is still pro-life. If you push those out you’re going to lose a huge portion of pro-life supporters. What’s next? If he says that he’s ok with up to 8 weeks it’s more proof that he’s not pro-life?

    Going to the extremes isn’t going to win enough people over for a viable effort. You may have the moral high ground but you will lose.

    1. Kong, can you give me one medical scenario where it’s necessary to abort a baby to save a mother’s life?

      1. Kong is making a political argument based on actual evidence of how the American public views the issue. Would you rather the a large and robust pro-life movement on the cusp of actually limiting abortion or a much smaller but ideologically pure one secure in its morals but unable to enact real change?

        1. If the law can pass in Alabama, why stop it? Do you really think incest and rape exceptions matter to the Supreme Court? They want to be able to kill any baby legally. Period.

          So then, to hell with the Supreme Court. An unjust law is no law at all, and the States have every right to restrict abortion. Make the limp-wristed John Roberts enforce his damnable decision.

          This issue is the same as Jim Crow and slavery in principle, but far more serious in degree.

        2. I’m not sure I understand the question DinoDoc. I ask the question because there is no medial scenario I know of where it is first necessary to abort a baby to save a mother’s life. So that whole argument is invalid.

      2. @watchman I’m not a doctor so of course I can’t answer that. However, there are mothers that die during child birth and the doctors tell them so they can make the choice. It would take some massive courage for the mother to know before birth that she has a high chance of dying during birth and still go through with having the baby.

      3. If a pregnancy endangers a mother’s life, they will usually do a C-Section to deliver it and try to save both mother and baby.

      1. @drkjk I don’t need to have an opinion because you’re here to tell me what my own opinions are.

      1. @drkjk There’s a difference in being intellectually honest in what you believe and pushing a bill that has zero chance of passing. He didn’t just say he believes there should be no exceptions. He pretty much said that anyone that disagrees isn’t pro-life. That’s an extreme position that would lose a lot of people that would otherwise help passing more restrictive laws. It’s not a smart move.

        1. So your position is pregnant women should have the absolute right to define that which is and which not a human being? Personally I find that repugnant and extreme.

          1. @drkjk I don’t really give a flying f*** if you think that’s repugnant and extreme because I never said that and it pisses me off that you’re putting words in my mouth.

            Doing this kind of twist is like me telling you that you hate mothers and want them to die during birth and/or want to punish them for daring to allow their daddies or brothers to rape them. Don’t tell me what I believe!

  10. Well, I disagree. Wholeheartedly. The baby didn’t rape anyone. The baby didn’t commit incest.

    1. Pro choicers will argue that it is traumatizing for the mother to have to carry a “demon seed” to term. That it makes her re-live the rape in every second of the pregnancy.

      1. Yet planned butcherhood never reports said rape and incest crimes. If the woman’s trauma mattered, pro aborts and planned butcherhood would want the person who committed this crime locked up.

  11. The guy was and still is a Democrat. He’s been a Populist President. Every Conservative should be ecstatic with what we’ve gotten and be grateful. He could’ve been a milktoast RINO to appeal to the center but he chose to stand his ground on issues lifelong REPUBLICANS don’t even have the spine to do.
    I’ll give him a pass for having an opinion on the “exceptions” on abortion as will many others. The guy has been more Republican than anyone could have expected. Too bad he’s also been so immature. That being said, he’s come a long way from his first two years. Hopefully, he can hold his Twitter peanut gallery pot shots during the Dem primary to mature attacks on policy and not memes.

    1. @ronbo Oh please. The guy could cross every check mark on the conservative list except for one and you’d still claim he’s a Democrat. I am so tired of hearing that baseless bullsh**. If you define a conservative by being perfect you’re going to have an extremely small list.

  12. Trump isn’t an ideologue so he has mixed signals on abortion based on what he thinks is popular with the voters.

    But he is appointing constitutional, pro life judges. So no matter what he feels personally about it, let the constitution be followed and it will work itself out as a matter of human rights and liberty for the unborn.

    1. @tracy The problem is he is undermining the Alabama law by saying that women should be able to get abortions for A, B, and C. He should have just said he is strongly pro-life and left it at that. Mike Pence gave a better pro-life response this week.

      1. The law is already signed, it’s going to court and what he thinks about it doesnt matter.

        1. But it’s not helpful for him, Kevin McCarthy, and Ronna McDaniel to hint they disagree with the Alabama law. Trump is the head of the Republican Party so his opinion on the matter is important.

    2. @tracy

      Trump isn’t an ideologue so he has mixed signals on abortion based on what he thinks is popular with the voters

      That may be true but we also have to consider that politicians have to look at what is plausible and what will stand. I personally don’t want a President that pushes a view that is supported by 5% of Americans. Going all out and banning all abortions period with no exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother wouldn’t even make it past Republicans.

      1. That’s what I mean he isnt an idealogue.

        My feelings on the matter are it’s a human life in the image of God and shouldn’t be under a death sentance for the circumstances of its conception.

        But I know I am in a small minority.

        1. @tracy I get that but I couldn’t support a bill without those conditions. I can imagine that for the mother it’s an extremely bad situation. A serious question (that you might not be able to answer….understandably) is would you feel the same way if you got pregnant by your brother or dad who raped you? The thought of it makes me sick…the act.

    1. @watchman I can’t speak for the women in those situations but my guess would be that it has to be a very horrible nightmare to be pregnant with their dad or brother’s baby. I wouldn’t support waiting past the accepted deadline for any other abortion though (with rape and incest). Like one of the states went down to 8 weeks I believe. I think if you push that down to zero it will never stand for very long.

      1. Think of the horror a person must suffer being dismembered and literally having the life sucked out of them.

        1. @drkjk I get that, which is why it’s controversial. It’s a bad scenario either way. I couldn’t tell a woman she had to have her brother’s baby. I just couldn’t. I also wouldn’t be able to tell a woman that she must die to save the life of the baby.

          1. The former is necessary, if difficult. The latter isn’t necessary, since the object of the act is to save a human life (the mother’s) while at the same time, sadly and without intention, ending another.

      2. Would it be difficult? I imagine it would. But then they would go through the trauma of getting an abortion, which does nothing to undo what happened. And however it was brought about, the life is still innocent and it still is murder. And how often does this scenario happen? I’m willing to guess pregnancy as the result of incest is extremely rare. In this country at least.

        1. @Watchman Unfortunately, pregnancy as a result of incest is not as rare as you think! I know of 3 separate families in which incest pregnancy happened in the small rural area I grew up in.

          1. @lillie-belle I’ve never heard of a pregnancy from incest, although I have met a number of people whom I suspected were the result of inbreeding.

        2. @watchman If it’s so rare then why be so bothered that it’s included in the law? You can say it doesn’t matter how few…if it only saves one life even, but the same argument can be made for the women that suffer the traumatic experience.

    2. It’s more fundamental than even that question. If one argues that life begins at conception, which is what science tell us, then it doesn’t matter how a human being is sired. People that make exceptions for rape and incest have an obligation to clarify how those human beings are less than human. Abortion isn’t about the mother, it’s about the most innocent and helpless people of our society.

      1. When I was a teen I was a pro-life, but I seriously entertained the “pro-choice” position because I was libertarian, and thought to myself that I couldn’t imagine myself telling a woman what to do. But looking back, my motivation wasn’t really libertarianism, but simply a lack of courage. I didn’t want to anger anyone, even though I knew with all human certainty that the life in the womb was a human being. I simply wasn’t honest with myself.

    3. Rape and incest account for a small amount of the total abortions performed. Why take the chance of losing the core battle because we ignore those concerns. If the major battle of stopping abortion is won it would be much easier to win their hearts.

    4. How does two wrongs make a right?

      Well see, we have to fight fire with fire. We have to become the leftists in order to beat the leftists. The ends justify the means and all the other progressive unprincipled claptrap that the right wing has learned to accept and celebrate under their orange jackass leader.

    5. Agree. It makes no sense to say you believe in the sanctity of innocent life and then say it’s okay to abort a baby conceived in rape. The baby is still an innocent life.

    6. Bad things have happened to me and I was never given the impression that I could kill someone because of it. Certainly not someone who had no responsibility in the incident.

    7. Reagan felt the same way, actually.

      He was remorseful for signing the Bill in California and said given the chance, he WOULD NOT sign it again.

  13. “As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the (two) exceptions – Rape, Incest…”

    A significant flaw imo.

  14. it shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s not down with the cause of completely wiping out abortion, as he used to be pro-choice.

    Given his past, I wouldn’t be at all shocked if he’s paid for a few himself.

    1. @dinodoc I wouldn’t either but he has said his position on the issue has changed. As long as he’s continuing with an acceptable view I’m going to roll with it. In the end what matters is what he supports that gets passed into law.

  15. The rape or incest argument IMHO is a ruse to allow abortions. However, I remember growing up there was a girl in the neighborhood who was mentally challenged and everyone said it was because she was the child of incest. As a kid I didn’t know what it meant and to this day I don’t know if it was true. Never knew what happened to her either. Incest was also the reason you weren’t allowed to marry close relatives. Had to be at least a “third cousin”.

    The “life of a mother” is an entirely different case and is a choice which today is extremely rare. Does anyone though remember the movie “The Cardinal” where he had to choose between the baby and his sister and chose the baby?

    1. This is not about our personal position on exceptions. I agree with you, but the political reality there is consensus to ban most abortions if we allow exceptions. Okay, let’s save 95%+ of the babies and then we can work on educating people on the exceptions.

      Without exceptions, support drops dramatically. Focusing on the exceptions only serves to split pro-lifers, alienate those who would otherwise be pro-life, and make pro-lifers look as radical as the pro-abortion politicians endorsing infanticide.

      Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let’s not lose everything why we debate a small percentage of the cases.

      If I could get an outright national ban on abortions after 20 weeks today, with exceptions, I’d take it. That’s better than what we have today. If I could get 15 weeks or 10 weeks, or after a heartbeat is detected, I’d take any one of those deals — because it would save the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of lives. …then I’d get busy on saving more.

    2. This is a link to my Pastor’s book website, “Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues”, the chapter on abortion. Well worth watching the video and picking up a copy of the book. What he doesn’t say in the video, but outlines in the book, is the fact that rape and incest abortions make up less than .118% of all abortions. He points out his oldest daughter (adopted at birth) was the result of a vicious rape, and when she was 12 years old she told a group of Hospital board members, “I may not have been a “wanted” pregnancy, but I am a VERY wanted child.”

      http://www.wellversedbook.com/chapters/10-abortion-3/

      “The Cardinal” where he had to choose between the baby and his sister and chose the baby?

      I am not familiar with the movie, but I do know women who have been pregnant and on their death bed who have declared, “… if you can’t save me, at least save my baby.”

  16. Donald’s doesn’t appear to be a deep thinker, so it’s easy to understand why he’s falling for the rape and incest exceptions and the life-of-the-mother canard. There’s no need to re-plow that ground, since there’s a post here that handles the subject extremely well.

    But this is ironic because the current, popular, pro-life surge is almost entirely attributable to Trump’s outspokenness.

    1. The pro-life surge is attributable to overreach by pro-abortion radicals willing to out themselves as infanticide advocates.

      Something like 86% of Americans oppose late term abortions and think they should be prohibited. The number is higher for actual infanticide as endorsed by Gov. Northam.

      Whatever we think of exceptions, the political reality is most Americans are not deep thinkers on this issue and oppose prohibitions on abortion without restrictions.

      Let’s save as many lives as we can now. Then we can educate people about the small number of exceptions and work on that later. By insisting on everything now, we will lose and many more babies will die.

      1. >> The pro-life surge is attributable to overreach by pro-abortion radicals willing to out themselves as infanticide advocates. <<

        Trump made it an issue. He deserves most of the credit.

  17. In the case of rape and incest the mother should have the choice. To force her to carry a baby to term for the father of a MS13 or some other thug is tantamount to slavery. If she decides to have the child and either keep it or put it up for adoption the father should pay child support, healthcare, and college tuition.

    1. To force her to carry a baby to term for the father of a MS13 or some other thug is tantamount to slavery.

      No, it’s not. It’s simply a consequence of tragedy.

      If the thug cut the nose off her face instead of getting her pregnant, she still has to walk around without a nose until she can have it reconstructed. It may suck, but it simply is what it is. That’s not a pass for killing another human (who had nothing to do with her tragedy).

      If anything, it illustrates the need for truly specialized care for women impregnated through rape. Literally, hand and foot waiting on them through that process to make it as comfortable as possible. What that we invested charity specifically for that, we could really undercut the progressive cop-out with this excuse for abortion.

      1. @atomicsentinel

        If anything, it illustrates the need for truly specialized care for women impregnated through rape. Literally, hand and foot waiting on them through that process to make it as comfortable as possible. What that we invested charity specifically for that, we could really undercut the progressive cop-out with this excuse for abortion.

        Now that’s an interesting idea.

  18. Ok, maybe I’ll agree to the rape or incest exception if we kill the rapists and incestuous parents, too. If anyone deserves death, it’s them, right?

  19. Just a couple years ago I finally realized I can not accept the rape and incest exclusions. I struggled with thinking about the women forced to carry and give birth after suffering what had already happened to them. The fact that we would be punishing an innocent life and that all life is created in God’s image made me realize if I support life I can not condone abortion for any reason except the actual life of the mother. That being said I would be ecstatic if abortion was restricted to only those three reasons and never after the first trimester.

  20. The Patrick Madrid thread from yesterday is worth a listen if you didn’t already. The ‘rape or incest’ argument certainly was put to rest for me after listening to his first caller.

    1. The philosophical or moral position is not the point. Ultimately, our position needs to be successfully implemented into public policy.

      Today, there is a chance of getting significant restrictions on abortions with exceptions. We should push for that.

      Today, there is no chance of getting significant restrictions on abortions without exceptions. Worse, by pushing for no exceptions, we are alienating people who otherwise will support bans on most abortions.

      Let’s end what we can end today. Let’s save lives starting today, instead of continuing to let babies be murdered because we couldn’t get a law that perfectly matched our position.

  21. The bots are out tonights and they have Sooper in their sights

    I’m a poet and I don’t know it 🙂

  22. The guy just takes every side of an issue and lets his minions fight it out. That being said, this is all about posturing for 2020 elections

  23. SooperMexican is a NeverTrumper. He subtly, but constantly mocks not only Trump, but his supporters. It’s why this site has lost many of it’s visitors.

    By the way, why is his username “SooperMexican”? I’m a fellow Mexican-American and I’d never choose a username like that. If anything, I’d call myself a SooperAmerican. I’m American first. Apparently, he doesn’t feel the same way. I think it speaks volumes about him.

    1. Totally agree! Guy banned me like 3 times for supporting trump. Guess I’ll get banned again for bring it up.

      I used to absolutely love this site. The trump hate was unreal especially in the primary with ted Cruz. No one now admits how conservative trump has been

    2. I absolutely concur, and have stated this many times.

      SuperMexican is not an actual pro-American Constitutional Conservative Lincoln Republican, he is if anything a closet Trump hating center-leftist running a conservative media web site, which he exposes with every word he types.

      He is not fooling anyone but himself.

      1. I’d be interested in seeing how much the traffic has gone down here…

        Used to be one of my goto websites, now is a rarely used fringe site

        1. If anyone has left here it’s the never Trump crowd. You obviously don’t come here enough to know that … seems more like a drive by liberal tactic to come here and spew crap

          1. I stopped coming here because I was on there trump train first…..while all you jerks were insulting me and bragging about Ted Cruz during primary season.

            Don’t question me!

            My bona fides is legit

            1. Anyone who has to proclaim his bonafides are legit has none to begin with. And being the first on the trump train isn’t something a conservative brags about. You’d feel at home with your homies at BreitFart.

    3. By the way, why is his username “SooperMexican”?
      He was SooperMexican when you were in diapers and there was a real thing called message boards.

    4. Also, he spells “Super” wrong! Like some kind of Mexican! This absolutely proves that he’s a Russian liberal.

    5. I love it when people come to this blog and essentially accuse Soopy of being an illegal all because they don’t like something he wrote.

      And now you come along and essentially accuse him of the same thing, suggesting he doesn’t love America as much as he should because because you disagree with him.

      You can disagree with him if you want, but to attack him over his internet name is below the belt.

      This is your only warning on this. You won’t get another.

  24. Once again, Trump reminds us that he is actually an abortion advocate.

    Gross. One cannot claim to oppose the murder of pre-born children, and also believe that there are situations where the murder of pre-born children is acceptable.

    Abortion is murder – every single time.

  25. The bots are out tonights and they have Sooper in their sights

    I’m a poet and I don’t know it 🙂

  26. Do you really believe that Trump does all that tweeting with 1 finger,I don’t.He probably has a ghost tweeter.

        1. Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas law banning abortion. The Texas law was law; Roe v Wade is an opinion.

          And yes, Roe should be overturned, and the power to regulate abortion be left up to each state.

  27. SooperMexican is a NeverTrumper. He subtly, but constantly mocks not only Trump, but his supporters. It’s why this site has lost many of it’s visitors.

    By the way, why is his username “SooperMexican”? I’m a fellow Mexican-American and I’d never choose a username like that. If anything, I’d call myself a SooperAmerican. I’m American first. Apparently, he doesn’t feel the same way. I think it speaks volumes about him.

    1. By the way, why is his username “SooperMexican”?
      He was SooperMexican when you were in diapers and there was a real thing called message boards.

    2. Also, he spells “Super” wrong! Like some kind of Mexican! This absolutely proves that he’s a Russian liberal.

    3. I love it when people come to this blog and essentially accuse Soopy of being an illegal all because they don’t like something he wrote.

      And now you come along and essentially accuse him of the same thing, suggesting he doesn’t love America as much as he should because because you disagree with him.

      You can disagree with him if you want, but to attack him over his internet name is below the belt.

      This is your only warning on this. You won’t get another.

    4. Totally agree! Guy banned me like 3 times for supporting trump. Guess I’ll get banned again for bring it up.

      I used to absolutely love this site. The trump hate was unreal especially in the primary with ted Cruz. No one now admits how conservative trump has been

    5. I absolutely concur, and have stated this many times.

      SuperMexican is not an actual pro-American Constitutional Conservative Lincoln Republican, he is if anything a closet Trump hating center-leftist running a conservative media web site, which he exposes with every word he types.

      He is not fooling anyone but himself.

      1. I’d be interested in seeing how much the traffic has gone down here…

        Used to be one of my goto websites, now is a rarely used fringe site

        1. If anyone has left here it’s the never Trump crowd. You obviously don’t come here enough to know that … seems more like a drive by liberal tactic to come here and spew crap

          1. I stopped coming here because I was on there trump train first…..while all you jerks were insulting me and bragging about Ted Cruz during primary season.

            Don’t question me!

            My bona fides is legit

            1. Anyone who has to proclaim his bonafides are legit has none to begin with. And being the first on the trump train isn’t something a conservative brags about. You’d feel at home with your homies at BreitFart.

  28. I don’t even consider that Alabama law truly against abortion because they know it’s not going to be taken up by the Supremes and will be overturned fast.

    So what’s the point? To get on the record, without fixing anything, I find that reprehensible! It’s fake, and it’s why there is still abortion, because everyone is virtue signaling showing how much better they are than others, and doing NOTHING!

    Empty virtue signaling is worse than nothing.

    1. We will see. It is public knowledge that the purpose of the Alabama law is that it leaves zero wiggle room for the court on the question of LIFE. They are forcing a ruling on that single subject. I am not sure as you as to how it is going to go.

    2. @cookiebob It’s far more strategic than that. It’s a legislative attempt to get the Supreme Court to *find* that a fetus is a human being.

      The logic behind it is impeccable. Even if it somehow resulted in the most draconian level of enforcement, which I doubt, it’s a solid effort to begin righting what Roe v. Wade made so very wrong.

      And I take a pure Federalism position on the issue. So I do not support a national ban, just like I wouldn’t support the federal government subsuming state laws on murder, rape, and fraud.

      1. I am more of a Federalist on this too, and right now that is law in Alabama and I think they make claims about strategy, I just don’t think it works like that… the court strikes it, it’s gone… the Supremes are never taking up something this controversial, once it’s struck down it’s gone, and it has some easy things to strike it on like that you can’t replant a fetus from a tubal pregnancy.

        I think it’s an empty gesture for re election.

        1. You say “…it has some easy things to strike it on like that you can’t replant a fetus from a tubal pregnancy.”

          You’ve made this slanderous claim so many times in recent days. Would you please actually show us the link where it can supposedly be shown that Alabama politicians are nuttier than fruitcakes?

        2. People need to actually read the Alabama law. It specifically says it does NOT prohibit abortion in the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. Because as we know, an ectopic is never viable, does not develop properly, and would probably kill the mother if not removed.

        3. @cookiebob
          If the Supreme Court takes it up, it’s going to be very hard to address the no-exceptions aspect without weighing in on when life begins.

      2. The logic behind it is impeccable.

        100% agree.

        And I take a pure Federalism position on the issue. So I do not support a national ban…

        Hot dang Bob you’re on fire today.

    3. The more states pass laws against abortion, the more likely it is that the Supreme Court will be forced to realize that America doesn’t see Roe v. Wade as “settled law.” I’ve been amazed at the recent turn of events and hope pro-life states keep them coming.

  29. I have no problem with his abortion tweet. He’s laying out his personal opinion, which is different from mine. But I think his is the most likely position to be taken by SCOTUS if they overturn Roe v Wade.

  30. Once again, Trump reminds us that he is actually an abortion advocate.

    Gross. One cannot claim to oppose the murder of pre-born children, and also believe that there are situations where the murder of pre-born children is acceptable.

    Abortion is murder – every single time.

  31. Speaking of Ronald Reagan… “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
    September 21, 1980, Presidential Debate in Baltimore.

    1. Brilliant! We should demand a poll of the opinions of those still in the womb on abortion.

      1. I think the fact that they are living, growing and becoming vital second by second tells us how they would be voting. Life does not thrive if it is against itself living.

  32. If you are in a classic, heated topic discussion, here’s a pro tip:

    Ignore any replies or arguments that begin with any form of, “So what you’re saying is…”

    It’s like a big warning sign… “Strawman Ahead”

    1. It’s called conversation. It’s short hand for, “What I hear you saying is….” The question is trying to illicit clarification of a position. What I read from your statement is that you don’t want your statements and positions questioned or clarified.

      1. What you’re saying is you don’t have an argument so you must misstate what Bob said.

  33. While I am all for bills challenging to Roe v Wade, we’re at risk of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    Whether it was New York legalizing infanticide or Governor Northam endorsing infanticide, pro-abortion overreach was alienating moderates. Their radical agenda was pushing Americans to the pro-life position.

    And the pro-life response? …to throw it away in pursuit of perfection. Many in the pro-life movement are willing to sacrifice banning most abortions in an attempt to end all abortions now. That’s unrealistic, politically naive, and counter-productive to stopping the murder.

    Aside from being life and death, this issue is divisive because legalization of murder in the womb was imposed on America without broad consensus. We have broad consensus on banning late term abortions. Many states enjoy broad consensus on banning most abortions after the heartbeat is detected. Let’s save lives now, and then work on building consensus on the exceptions in the next round.

    1. @txgrunner Right now, I think the momentum is shifting strongly in our favor. Life and death is what it ultimately comes down to, and if we really believe that, it only makes sense to frame it that way, and to be uncompromising about it. Wheeling and dealing is something lawmakers can do behind closed doors, but for the ground-level activists to entertain it makes them appear disingenuous, which in turn blunts and damages their entire argument.

      To use a sports analogy (and I hate sports analogies), you play to win. If you compete in the Olympics, you go for the gold. If you end up with the bronze, that’s okay too, but you don’t go into it aiming for the bronze, never mind telling everyone that’s what you’ll settle for.

  34. This is a little bizarre because he has derided Reagan in the past for not being an actual conservative

    How is it bizarre? It’s Trump. Consistency isn’t his strong suit.

  35. Do you really believe that Trump does all that tweeting with 1 finger,I don’t.He probably has a ghost tweeter.

  36. but here he is citing him as if he’s the patron saint of politics.

    It doesn’t help that people are affirming him in that.

    1. Literally no is affirming him in that.

      The fact that Trump treats politics like a rat with a chainsaw treats a maze is why he has so many fans.

      1. Progressives always revere their leaders like holy men, Bob. That’s why they make so many excuses for them, rationalize their every word and deed, and assert his genius at every turn (even when it makes no sense at all). They did the same thing to Barack. No matter what he said or did, to his followers he could do no wrong.

        1. So you’re waiting for the second coming before supporting anyone? After all, nobody is perfect, not even you.

          1. I’m not asking for perfection. I’m asking for principles that are more or less in line with my own.

            Progressivism is not. This is why I could not support Donald, and why I’m gobsmacked that so many on the right do.

            1. “it shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s not down with the cause of completely wiping out abortion, as he used to be pro-choice.”

              I look at it this way, the President has gone from pro-choice to pro-life with exceptions. While I don’t agree with the exceptions, I do believe that he eventually will come around on this, too.

              You must admit, that his Pro-life stance is far better than anyone of the liberal candidates running against him. They are all anti-life…

              1. @joyfulgiver Exactly. The, “Perfect as the enemy of good,” position is useless in almost every case.

                The one time you really need that kind of absolutism in a leader is when you need someone to drop The Bomb.

                1. Except that it’s been made very clear that perfection isn’t what’s being sought.

                  Principle is.

                  I am not going to abdicate those for “wins.” Why do you? If you cheat on a test to get an A – hey, great, your GPA soars. Is that all that matters? Because while the GPA soars, your integrity tanks. Is that worth it?

                  It’s not to me.

              2. Assuming he’s flipped, and not just telling his bloc what they want to hear – which is a real issue with this guy. But hey, you’re right, if it gets us less abortions in America, great.

                BUT I do refuse to play this game anymore:

                his Pro-life stance is far better than anyone of the liberal candidates running against him

                I don’t care what the competition is. I didn’t vote for Not Hillary in 2016, and I won’t be voting Not Joe in 2020. If Donald earns my vote, I’ll give it to him. If he doesn’t, then he’s not getting it solely on the basis that he’s not someone else.

                I am 100% done with that binary sh*t – and this country would be a lot better if more folks stopped being slaves to it.

            2. @atomicsentinel
              Rational self interest is the political heart (not the spiritual heart) of conservatism. It’s the main reason I have caucused with conservatives in the past.

              You are being gobsmacked because running face first into hard fact is rough on the circuits.

              1. Rational self interest isn’t looking at a jar of 50% poison and 100% poison and drinking the former.

                It’s not drinking either.

                Progressive Right vs Progressive Left isn’t a choice. It’s a scam. If it’s going to be forced on you against your will, then so be it – but consenting to it gives it your stamp of legitimacy. Conservatism doesn’t do that.

                1. @atomicsentinel Nice metaphor. Doesn’t apply.

                  Rational self interest is using principal to guide your decisions. Your metaphor is about clinging to absolutism, which oddly enough, is the very position you have been flogging.

                2. It’s not absolutism, unless you consider absolutism to be unwilling to accept progressivism whatsoever when there are alternatives. (Or, are you denying the existence of alternatives?)

                  I am more than willing to make acceptable compromises when reality doesn’t quite run parallel to principle. You seem to think that I should be willing to make unacceptable compromises – when reality flies in direct opposition to principle.

                  Yea, I’m not going to do that. Why do you?

                3. @atomicsentinel What possible compromises in your life could Trump be involved in? He’s an officeholder, not the Wizard King of @atomicsentinel Land.

        2. “They” are the ones being broomed aside. Don’t mistake people being thrilled with Trump’s actions as being the same as Obama’s lemmings.

          That would mean you have completely ignored all of the incredibly over-the-top anger he generates whenever he indicates any willingness to support liberal left positions on anything.

          1. Don’t mistake people being thrilled with Trump’s actions as being the same as Obama’s lemmings.

            I sure as hell can’t tell the difference.

            That would mean you have completely ignored all of the incredibly over-the-top anger he generates whenever he indicates any willingness to support liberal left positions on anything.

            Please. I have watched them cheer in full-throated support of his leftist actions. The most recent is his insane spending package. “Oh but we NEED that,” they all pretzel to rationalize, “Because like… infrastructure! And I don’t even know what that means!”

            The problem is that Donald is an “Ends Justify The Means” type president. That’s a wholly progressive ideology – and everyone’s just going right along with it because he’s wearing the correct jersey.

            1. “Oh but we NEED that,” they all pretzel to rationalize, “Because like… infrastructure! “

              You have to sift long and hard to find anyone holding that position. That’s what makes your arguments so untenable.

                1. You’ve discovered the fringe. Congratulations. I thought you meant among people with some sort of Q rating on the right.

  37. I never thought I would share this online but I’m getting tired of people who are not experienced with incest demand that children of incest should not be a reason for abortion. I am a father/daughter incest survivor. I was lucky. I didn’t get pregnant, but I know from personal experience that it takes years and years to process such violence and a young woman who is the victim will NOT be in a decent mindset to have such a child. No one on the pro-life side seems to think about the genetic issues. Father/daughter incest is like playing Russian Roulette. The chances of having an extremely damaged child are very good in such a situation. But I suppose for the sake of such child, the victim of incest should be required to carry, deliver, and possibly raise such a child. I am Pro-Life, but I will not sit in judgment of another woman who makes the choice to abort. I am not God and I cannot mete out punishment. It is enough for me to know that such women who abort under normal circumstances will suffer their own guilt and shame over it at some point.
    I once had neighbors who were first cousins and THREE times they thought they would win the incest lottery and have a normal child. Two were severely disabled, one was born with half a brain and had to be institutionalized. Is that the kind of life that should be saved? Is anyone thinking of the baby/life itself? To not think of these issues carefully before spouting that all life must be saved is ludicrous, IMO. It is not you who has to live that life. In such situations, if incest victims were made to carry and deliver such children, it would be horrific abuse on top of what they have already had to endure. If you are not an incest survivor, you simply do not know what you’re talking about. Thanks for letting me share.

    1. It’s all about you? Snuffing out life because it’s inconvenient is your answer? To answer your question, yes, most of us are thinking about the baby, and that his/her life is every bit as precious as yours.

      1. She wasn’t making it “all about” herself. She was relating horrific, personal experiences that informed her opinion.

        While I don’t agree with her final position, I respect the fact her opinion is informed, considered, and based on trauma I can’t begin to comprehend. Accordingly, even as I disagree, I can manage to be courteous and respectful toward her.

        It’s knee-jerk, flippant and insulting reactions like your, “It’s all about you?” that alienate many who are otherwise close to the pro-life position.

        This isn’t the Alamo and your no William Barrett Travis drawing a line in the dirt insisting people are 100% for you or your enemy. Even Travis said he’d hold nothing against any man who opted to leave. You seem to be ready to show 5 times as much venom at a pro-lifer who differs with you on exceptions as you are at Governor Northam who openly endorses infanticide.

        1. You really think that by questioning somebody’s position will drive them away? If you really believe that then I’m guessing you don’t think much of your fellow man, or woman that they would be so easily flipped.

          1. You weren’t “questioning” her position, which would be completely legitimate. You were calling her conceited and selfish in making it all about herself. You were insulting her position instead of countering it in a respectful manner.

            Writing is two dimensional so people can easily misinterpret tone. Your answer suggested a lack of empathy and respect, a dismissive tone. Did you mean that? I don’t know, but those sorts of attitudes tend to alienate some.

            1. I don’t have much time for emotional rationalizing, that’s how we got to where we are in the first place. That’s how we get less than 10% of the population dictating to the other 90%, through appeals to emotion.

              And yes, when somebody plays the victim card and suggests that alone makes their position unassailable, I’m going to call them out.

      2. Her argument was not “all about” her. She drew upon a horrific personal experience–one which few have had and few can ever relate to on a first-hand basis–to explain why she will not judge the victims of incest. That is not an argument about ‘convenience.’

    2. No one on the pro-life side seems to think about the genetic issues.

      That’s because they’re irrelevant, outside of the fact that their genetics makes them an individual and unique human being.

      The chances of having an extremely damaged child are very good in such a situation.

      I have never met a child with physical/mental/emotional disabilities that wasn’t delighted to simply be alive. No child comes out of the womb seeking death, and I’ve never heard of one whose first words were “Kill me.”

      But I suppose for the sake of such child, the victim of incest should be required to carry, deliver, and possibly raise such a child.

      I’d like to believe that having the strength and determination to make a good (life) out of a terrible and tragic (incest/rape) would be enough motivation to see that child to term.

      After that, pass him off for adoption if you don’t think you can handle that. I wouldn’t begrudge such a victim that kind of decision.

      1. Actually it usually takes a few generations of inbreeding for there to be substantial harm. But keep on denying the humanity of those born of incest if it makes you feel better.

        1. What in all the nine hells are you even talking about? Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

          1. C’mon, did you really expect him to read all the way to the 17th word before flying off the handle? I think you’re asking a bit much of some… /sarc

          2. I would hope you accept my apology. When I first read you post it hadn’t properly formatted, with quotes, on my browser, which made all of the text look as if it was attributed to you.

          3. I think he didn’t realize you were quoting the person above, and instead thought they were your own comments. I couldn’t see your block quotes until I upvoted your comment.

    3. The issue turns on the humanity of the child. If the baby is truly a human being, then it’s life deserves protection. Certainly, carrying the child to term is difficult, but so is taking part in ending the life of an innocent child –a child as innocent as the mother.

      Abortion can’t unring the bell. The horror of the rape will always be there. Take a listen to this testimony of a father who took his daughter to an abortuary after she was raped. There are two sides to this story. https://therightscoop.com/patrick-madrid-on-why-the-rape-and-incest-arguments-for-abortion-dont-hold-water/

      1. Everything you wrote is correct and why I agree there shouldn’t be exceptions for rape and incest.

        However, we’re not in academia or seminary debating theoretical or moral questions. The president is talking about public policy. Personally, I don’t think he is any more pro-life now than he was pro-abortion 15 years ago — he’s playing to his audience. In this sense, that’s smart of him because a clear majority support restrictions on most abortions with the rape and incest exceptions.

        Pushing bills without exceptions hurts our cause. Poorly informed, recent converts, and those who only partially support the pro-life position are alienated when pro-lifers start talking about exceptions and trashing anyone who favors the exceptions. We’re splitting our movement and playing into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd for a small percentage of abortions.

        Let’s save as many babies as we can today. Let’s ban the abortions we can ban while gaining adherents. Toward that end, we should focus on banning late term abortions first (over 86% of Americans support this) to put the onus back on the pro-abortion to explain their support for infanticide. Then we can work on educating and pushing for limiting or removing the exceptions as we build a consensus for protecting those babies too.

        1. I was arguing the principle. I acknowledge that legislating involves prudential judgements.

          In the case of the Alabama law, I don’t see any compelling reason to surrender peremptorily. If the law can pass in Alabama, we should celebrate that.

          Other state legislatures should pass laws that make sense for their states.

          Regarding SCOTUS, it is exceedingly unlikely that they will overturn Roe v. Wade, because of Roberts. He is a coward. And I don’t trust Kavanaugh, either. Regardless, incest and rape exceptions are tangential to our opponents’ intentions, which is unrestricted abortion through birth.

          My position is that the states (like Alabama) should pass their laws and enforce them, disregarding the Supreme Court. An unjust law is no law at all. Make Roberts enforce his decision.

          1. If RBG has to leave the bench and the current president replaces her, then overturning Roe v Wade is very possible (now that would be an all out nomination fight to make the Kavanaugh fight look like child’s play.)

            Fair enough and I agree states should pass whatever laws fit their culture and consensus within their state — that is, after all, the point of having states.

            I am concerned about laws like Alabama’s though because of how they are used outside of Alabama. We’ve already see the pro-abortionists use it to say, “look, see how radical and extreme they are, they want to imprison women [doctors] for abortion…” (of course she didn’t add [doctors] until she was proven to be lying.

            Her argument to those leery of “bible thumpers” would be much weaker if the Alabama law included exceptions, but she would make it anyway.

            This must be a very difficult time for moderates who are repulsed and disgusted by the the infanticide position of radicals like Governor Northam, but who have a long history of fearing “fundamentalists” invading their bedrooms. …not that they have, but it’s a trope they’ve been sold and many believe is real.

    4. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s important we face the real trauma that exists rather than sweeping it under the rug. My mind is not changed, but you have given us some sobering thoughts to consider.

    5. I’m skeptical that all your neighbors’ problem was in the parents being related. I recently read that the chances for genetic defect are somewhat greater than normal in cases of incest, but aren’t really terribly high. I’m sorry, I don’t have time to look it up again right now. I’m also very sorry for what you went through.

      Pregnancy can bring exposure that stops an incestuous relationship; abortion can cover it up and let it continue.

    6. I’m sorry for what you suffered, but I gotta say, I find your statement “Is that the kind of life that should be saved?” to be absolutely chilling.

      ” I am not God. ”

      Actually, you are putting yourself in the place of God when you make pronouncements on which lives are “worth” saving. Please reconsider. You are allowing your thoughts to go down the road of the eugenecists.

  38. Taking the all or nothing position and insisting on making less than .5% of pregnancies (rape and incest) THE issue leads to MORE abortions. The Alabama law, sadly, will strengthen and reaffirm Roe v. Wade, because they made .5% THE issue, and allowed 99.5% of abortion to be ignored.

      1. No, my issue is with political neophytes who are more interested in virtue signaling and polishing their brass buttons than they are in ending murder.

        Go research the Georgia Right to Life controversy from around 2014. GA RTL was led by a perfectionist who did his darnedest to scuttle a pro-life amendment to a budget bill. The weak as water GOP leadership was willing to allow the amendment, but only if it included exceptions for rape and incest. That’s unfortunate, but at least we’d get most of what we wanted.

        The GA RTL went to work to destroy consensus for the amendment…that’s when ultra-pro-lifer Erick Erickson joined another Georgia pro-life group and GA RTL fell apart. Erickson recognized better to save many lives now than watch millions more die because we insist on perfection now.

    1. Yeah, I think that these lawmakers are really shooting the movement in the foot. They could save a lot of babies’ lives if they took a firm but compromising position on the issue. By trying to take the absolutist position, they’re just going to be overturned and their whole effort wasted. Worse, they’re going to validate the pro-choicers who for years have been saying that pro-lifers were going to eliminate all access to abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

      1. I suspect they’re hoping for SCOTUS to make a Solomon’s choice on it. But that’s a pretty dangerous gamble.

  39. Donald’s doesn’t appear to be a deep thinker, so it’s easy to understand why he’s falling for the rape and incest exceptions and the life-of-the-mother canard. There’s no need to re-plow that ground, since there’s a post here that handles the subject extremely well.

    But this is ironic because the current, popular, pro-life surge is almost entirely attributable to Trump’s outspokenness.

    1. The pro-life surge is attributable to overreach by pro-abortion radicals willing to out themselves as infanticide advocates.

      Something like 86% of Americans oppose late term abortions and think they should be prohibited. The number is higher for actual infanticide as endorsed by Gov. Northam.

      Whatever we think of exceptions, the political reality is most Americans are not deep thinkers on this issue and oppose prohibitions on abortion without restrictions.

      Let’s save as many lives as we can now. Then we can educate people about the small number of exceptions and work on that later. By insisting on everything now, we will lose and many more babies will die.

      1. >> The pro-life surge is attributable to overreach by pro-abortion radicals willing to out themselves as infanticide advocates. <<

        Trump made it an issue. He deserves most of the credit.

  40. The rape or incest argument IMHO is a ruse to allow abortions. However, I remember growing up there was a girl in the neighborhood who was mentally challenged and everyone said it was because she was the child of incest. As a kid I didn’t know what it meant and to this day I don’t know if it was true. Never knew what happened to her either. Incest was also the reason you weren’t allowed to marry close relatives. Had to be at least a “third cousin”.

    The “life of a mother” is an entirely different case and is a choice which today is extremely rare. Does anyone though remember the movie “The Cardinal” where he had to choose between the baby and his sister and chose the baby?

    1. This is a link to my Pastor’s book website, “Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues”, the chapter on abortion. Well worth watching the video and picking up a copy of the book. What he doesn’t say in the video, but outlines in the book, is the fact that rape and incest abortions make up less than .118% of all abortions. He points out his oldest daughter (adopted at birth) was the result of a vicious rape, and when she was 12 years old she told a group of Hospital board members, “I may not have been a “wanted” pregnancy, but I am a VERY wanted child.”

      http://www.wellversedbook.com/chapters/10-abortion-3/

      “The Cardinal” where he had to choose between the baby and his sister and chose the baby?

      I am not familiar with the movie, but I do know women who have been pregnant and on their death bed who have declared, “… if you can’t save me, at least save my baby.”

    2. This is not about our personal position on exceptions. I agree with you, but the political reality there is consensus to ban most abortions if we allow exceptions. Okay, let’s save 95%+ of the babies and then we can work on educating people on the exceptions.

      Without exceptions, support drops dramatically. Focusing on the exceptions only serves to split pro-lifers, alienate those who would otherwise be pro-life, and make pro-lifers look as radical as the pro-abortion politicians endorsing infanticide.

      Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let’s not lose everything why we debate a small percentage of the cases.

      If I could get an outright national ban on abortions after 20 weeks today, with exceptions, I’d take it. That’s better than what we have today. If I could get 15 weeks or 10 weeks, or after a heartbeat is detected, I’d take any one of those deals — because it would save the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of lives. …then I’d get busy on saving more.

  41. In the case of rape and incest the mother should have the choice. To force her to carry a baby to term for the father of a MS13 or some other thug is tantamount to slavery. If she decides to have the child and either keep it or put it up for adoption the father should pay child support, healthcare, and college tuition.

    1. Is it thus your position that babies born of rape or incest are somehow less than human?

    2. To force her to carry a baby to term for the father of a MS13 or some other thug is tantamount to slavery.

      No, it’s not. It’s simply a consequence of tragedy.

      If the thug cut the nose off her face instead of getting her pregnant, she still has to walk around without a nose until she can have it reconstructed. It may suck, but it simply is what it is. That’s not a pass for killing another human (who had nothing to do with her tragedy).

      If anything, it illustrates the need for truly specialized care for women impregnated through rape. Literally, hand and foot waiting on them through that process to make it as comfortable as possible. What that we invested charity specifically for that, we could really undercut the progressive cop-out with this excuse for abortion.

      1. @atomicsentinel

        If anything, it illustrates the need for truly specialized care for women impregnated through rape. Literally, hand and foot waiting on them through that process to make it as comfortable as possible. What that we invested charity specifically for that, we could really undercut the progressive cop-out with this excuse for abortion.

        Now that’s an interesting idea.

  42. Just a couple years ago I finally realized I can not accept the rape and incest exclusions. I struggled with thinking about the women forced to carry and give birth after suffering what had already happened to them. The fact that we would be punishing an innocent life and that all life is created in God’s image made me realize if I support life I can not condone abortion for any reason except the actual life of the mother. That being said I would be ecstatic if abortion was restricted to only those three reasons and never after the first trimester.

  43. The Patrick Madrid thread from yesterday is worth a listen if you didn’t already. The ‘rape or incest’ argument certainly was put to rest for me after listening to his first caller.

    1. The philosophical or moral position is not the point. Ultimately, our position needs to be successfully implemented into public policy.

      Today, there is a chance of getting significant restrictions on abortions with exceptions. We should push for that.

      Today, there is no chance of getting significant restrictions on abortions without exceptions. Worse, by pushing for no exceptions, we are alienating people who otherwise will support bans on most abortions.

      Let’s end what we can end today. Let’s save lives starting today, instead of continuing to let babies be murdered because we couldn’t get a law that perfectly matched our position.

  44. Ok, maybe I’ll agree to the rape or incest exception if we kill the rapists and incestuous parents, too. If anyone deserves death, it’s them, right?

  45. Well, I disagree. Wholeheartedly. The baby didn’t rape anyone. The baby didn’t commit incest.

    1. Pro choicers will argue that it is traumatizing for the mother to have to carry a “demon seed” to term. That it makes her re-live the rape in every second of the pregnancy.

      1. Yet planned butcherhood never reports said rape and incest crimes. If the woman’s trauma mattered, pro aborts and planned butcherhood would want the person who committed this crime locked up.

  46. The perfect is the enemy of the good. I also believe life begins at conception, but if we could get to the point of ending abortions except for these rare cases, think of the millions of lives that would be saved!

    That fight would still go on, it would not be over.

    1. If those cases are so rare, they may as well be included. You either believe the scientific fact that human life starts with conception or you don’t. When you start making exceptions you find yourself on a slope, and the bottom of that slope has led to politicians giving serious consideration to terminating life after the infant is born.

    2. Legislating always involves prudential judgements, so an all-or-nothing approach isn’t necessary. But we shouldn’t back away from arguing against the rape and incest exceptions for two reasons. First, babies conceived in rape and incest are still babies –human beings whose lives deserve protection. Secondly, initial pro-life legislation with rape and incest exceptions can be positioned as a compromise or “middle” position, while the rape and incest loopholes could be closed later.

      1. It’s the Overton Window strategy which the Left has used against us for years.

    1. @watchman I can’t speak for the women in those situations but my guess would be that it has to be a very horrible nightmare to be pregnant with their dad or brother’s baby. I wouldn’t support waiting past the accepted deadline for any other abortion though (with rape and incest). Like one of the states went down to 8 weeks I believe. I think if you push that down to zero it will never stand for very long.

      1. Would it be difficult? I imagine it would. But then they would go through the trauma of getting an abortion, which does nothing to undo what happened. And however it was brought about, the life is still innocent and it still is murder. And how often does this scenario happen? I’m willing to guess pregnancy as the result of incest is extremely rare. In this country at least.

        1. @Watchman Unfortunately, pregnancy as a result of incest is not as rare as you think! I know of 3 separate families in which incest pregnancy happened in the small rural area I grew up in.

          1. @lillie-belle I’ve never heard of a pregnancy from incest, although I have met a number of people whom I suspected were the result of inbreeding.

        2. @watchman If it’s so rare then why be so bothered that it’s included in the law? You can say it doesn’t matter how few…if it only saves one life even, but the same argument can be made for the women that suffer the traumatic experience.

      2. Think of the horror a person must suffer being dismembered and literally having the life sucked out of them.

        1. @drkjk I get that, which is why it’s controversial. It’s a bad scenario either way. I couldn’t tell a woman she had to have her brother’s baby. I just couldn’t. I also wouldn’t be able to tell a woman that she must die to save the life of the baby.

          1. The former is necessary, if difficult. The latter isn’t necessary, since the object of the act is to save a human life (the mother’s) while at the same time, sadly and without intention, ending another.

            1. @thomas-aquinas I believe you’re saying you agree with an exception for saving the life of the mother?

              It’s a tragedy and heartbreaking scenario regardless.

    2. It’s more fundamental than even that question. If one argues that life begins at conception, which is what science tell us, then it doesn’t matter how a human being is sired. People that make exceptions for rape and incest have an obligation to clarify how those human beings are less than human. Abortion isn’t about the mother, it’s about the most innocent and helpless people of our society.

      1. When I was a teen I was a pro-life, but I seriously entertained the “pro-choice” position because I was libertarian, and thought to myself that I couldn’t imagine myself telling a woman what to do. But looking back, my motivation wasn’t really libertarianism, but simply a lack of courage. I didn’t want to anger anyone, even though I knew with all human certainty that the life in the womb was a human being. I simply wasn’t honest with myself.

    3. Agree. It makes no sense to say you believe in the sanctity of innocent life and then say it’s okay to abort a baby conceived in rape. The baby is still an innocent life.

    4. Rape and incest account for a small amount of the total abortions performed. Why take the chance of losing the core battle because we ignore those concerns. If the major battle of stopping abortion is won it would be much easier to win their hearts.

    5. Bad things have happened to me and I was never given the impression that I could kill someone because of it. Certainly not someone who had no responsibility in the incident.

    6. Reagan felt the same way, actually.

      He was remorseful for signing the Bill in California and said given the chance, he WOULD NOT sign it again.

    7. How does two wrongs make a right?

      Well see, we have to fight fire with fire. We have to become the leftists in order to beat the leftists. The ends justify the means and all the other progressive unprincipled claptrap that the right wing has learned to accept and celebrate under their orange jackass leader.

  47. it shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s not down with the cause of completely wiping out abortion, as he used to be pro-choice.

    Given his past, I wouldn’t be at all shocked if he’s paid for a few himself.

    1. @dinodoc I wouldn’t either but he has said his position on the issue has changed. As long as he’s continuing with an acceptable view I’m going to roll with it. In the end what matters is what he supports that gets passed into law.

  48. While I am all for bills challenging to Roe v Wade, we’re at risk of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    Whether it was New York legalizing infanticide or Governor Northam endorsing infanticide, pro-abortion overreach was alienating moderates. Their radical agenda was pushing Americans to the pro-life position.

    And the pro-life response? …to throw it away in pursuit of perfection. Many in the pro-life movement are willing to sacrifice banning most abortions in an attempt to end all abortions now. That’s unrealistic, politically naive, and counter-productive to stopping the murder.

    Aside from being life and death, this issue is divisive because legalization of murder in the womb was imposed on America without broad consensus. We have broad consensus on banning late term abortions. Many states enjoy broad consensus on banning most abortions after the heartbeat is detected. Let’s save lives now, and then work on building consensus on the exceptions in the next round.

    1. @txgrunner Right now, I think the momentum is shifting strongly in our favor. Life and death is what it ultimately comes down to, and if we really believe that, it only makes sense to frame it that way, and to be uncompromising about it. Wheeling and dealing is something lawmakers can do behind closed doors, but for the ground-level activists to entertain it makes them appear disingenuous, which in turn blunts and damages their entire argument.

      To use a sports analogy (and I hate sports analogies), you play to win. If you compete in the Olympics, you go for the gold. If you end up with the bronze, that’s okay too, but you don’t go into it aiming for the bronze, never mind telling everyone that’s what you’ll settle for.

  49. Ok Soop, you’re being a little unfair here and disingenuous in my opinion. Being against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother is still pro-life. If you push those out you’re going to lose a huge portion of pro-life supporters. What’s next? If he says that he’s ok with up to 8 weeks it’s more proof that he’s not pro-life?

    Going to the extremes isn’t going to win enough people over for a viable effort. You may have the moral high ground but you will lose.

    1. Kong, can you give me one medical scenario where it’s necessary to abort a baby to save a mother’s life?

      1. Kong is making a political argument based on actual evidence of how the American public views the issue. Would you rather the a large and robust pro-life movement on the cusp of actually limiting abortion or a much smaller but ideologically pure one secure in its morals but unable to enact real change?

        1. I’m not sure I understand the question DinoDoc. I ask the question because there is no medial scenario I know of where it is first necessary to abort a baby to save a mother’s life. So that whole argument is invalid.

          1. Let’s see. Uterine cancer. Pretty much any lower abdominal or pelvic surgery. A dislodged placenta.

            1. My sister was pregnant with my niece when she had an abnormal pap smear. Her doctor monitored her and after my niece was born, my sister took care if it. 16 years later, both are alive and well.

            2. And ectopic pregnancies. If these things are considered “life of the mother” exceptions, then they are MORALLY legitimate, which is all-important.

              The reason why these acts are morally justifiable is because abortion isn’t intended in these cases –saving the life of the mother is. The death of the baby is the concomitant effect of an act intended to save a human life.
              https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

          2. Let’s try this again: From 2018 Gallup: Do you think Abortions should be legal under any circumstances, only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all cases?

            Exceptions: 50%
            Abortions for all: 29%
            No Exceptions: 18%

            https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

            Which view do you think has the best chance of actually limiting abortions? The larger one that appeals to more people or the smaller and ideologically consistent one?

          3. @watchman I think that is false. Women die during birth and many times doctors know beforehand.

        2. If the law can pass in Alabama, why stop it? Do you really think incest and rape exceptions matter to the Supreme Court? They want to be able to kill any baby legally. Period.

          So then, to hell with the Supreme Court. An unjust law is no law at all, and the States have every right to restrict abortion. Make the limp-wristed John Roberts enforce his damnable decision.

          This issue is the same as Jim Crow and slavery in principle, but far more serious in degree.

      2. @watchman I’m not a doctor so of course I can’t answer that. However, there are mothers that die during child birth and the doctors tell them so they can make the choice. It would take some massive courage for the mother to know before birth that she has a high chance of dying during birth and still go through with having the baby.

      3. If a pregnancy endangers a mother’s life, they will usually do a C-Section to deliver it and try to save both mother and baby.

      1. @drkjk There’s a difference in being intellectually honest in what you believe and pushing a bill that has zero chance of passing. He didn’t just say he believes there should be no exceptions. He pretty much said that anyone that disagrees isn’t pro-life. That’s an extreme position that would lose a lot of people that would otherwise help passing more restrictive laws. It’s not a smart move.

        1. So your position is pregnant women should have the absolute right to define that which is and which not a human being? Personally I find that repugnant and extreme.

          1. @drkjk I don’t really give a flying f*** if you think that’s repugnant and extreme because I never said that and it pisses me off that you’re putting words in my mouth.

            Doing this kind of twist is like me telling you that you hate mothers and want them to die during birth and/or want to punish them for daring to allow their daddies or brothers to rape them. Don’t tell me what I believe!

      1. @drkjk I don’t need to have an opinion because you’re here to tell me what my own opinions are.

  50. “As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the (two) exceptions – Rape, Incest…”

    A significant flaw imo.

  51. The guy was and still is a Democrat. He’s been a Populist President. Every Conservative should be ecstatic with what we’ve gotten and be grateful. He could’ve been a milktoast RINO to appeal to the center but he chose to stand his ground on issues lifelong REPUBLICANS don’t even have the spine to do.
    I’ll give him a pass for having an opinion on the “exceptions” on abortion as will many others. The guy has been more Republican than anyone could have expected. Too bad he’s also been so immature. That being said, he’s come a long way from his first two years. Hopefully, he can hold his Twitter peanut gallery pot shots during the Dem primary to mature attacks on policy and not memes.

    1. @ronbo Oh please. The guy could cross every check mark on the conservative list except for one and you’d still claim he’s a Democrat. I am so tired of hearing that baseless bullsh**. If you define a conservative by being perfect you’re going to have an extremely small list.

  52. Trump isn’t an ideologue so he has mixed signals on abortion based on what he thinks is popular with the voters.

    But he is appointing constitutional, pro life judges. So no matter what he feels personally about it, let the constitution be followed and it will work itself out as a matter of human rights and liberty for the unborn.

    1. @tracy

      Trump isn’t an ideologue so he has mixed signals on abortion based on what he thinks is popular with the voters

      That may be true but we also have to consider that politicians have to look at what is plausible and what will stand. I personally don’t want a President that pushes a view that is supported by 5% of Americans. Going all out and banning all abortions period with no exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother wouldn’t even make it past Republicans.

      1. That’s what I mean he isnt an idealogue.

        My feelings on the matter are it’s a human life in the image of God and shouldn’t be under a death sentance for the circumstances of its conception.

        But I know I am in a small minority.

        1. @tracy I get that but I couldn’t support a bill without those conditions. I can imagine that for the mother it’s an extremely bad situation. A serious question (that you might not be able to answer….understandably) is would you feel the same way if you got pregnant by your brother or dad who raped you? The thought of it makes me sick…the act.

          1. If I felt that what was done to me was reason to kill the baby then I would find a way to accomplish the same without there being a law to make it easier.

            1. @tracy Which would have the same outcome as if a licensed doctor did it except it would be a lot more dangerous.

                1. @tracy Although that is true I’d say it would be a whole lot more barbaric and painful to do it with a coat hanger. It’s not that I disagree with you, but rather I’m torn between two perspectives of suffering. The mother was already traumatized and being forced to have the child against her will I’m sure is no less traumatizing. This is one decision I would leave up to the mother.

            2. @tracy Trust me, my position isn’t easy to come by. I see people saying that the baby didn’t do anything wrong to be snuffed out. They’re right, but it’s a case of being torn between two very bad options.

              1. Yes its two terrible options. But when culture/law starts to recognize the innocent baby having civil rights as we all enjoy the choice becomes a bit more clear.

                1. @tracy Maybe for some, but I don’t believe you’ll ever get enough support for a law like that. I think it would be wiser to not lose the support of the people that want those exceptions.

                2. The process for that is elections, if the voters in Alabama think the law goes too far then candidates will run on changing it.

                3. @tracy Of course, but I was talking about it on a more general level, not specifically about Alabama. I doubt Alabama’s law will stand either.

    2. @tracy The problem is he is undermining the Alabama law by saying that women should be able to get abortions for A, B, and C. He should have just said he is strongly pro-life and left it at that. Mike Pence gave a better pro-life response this week.

      1. The law is already signed, it’s going to court and what he thinks about it doesnt matter.

        1. But it’s not helpful for him, Kevin McCarthy, and Ronna McDaniel to hint they disagree with the Alabama law. Trump is the head of the Republican Party so his opinion on the matter is important.

          1. I agree the brave Alabama governor and the lawmakers needed more support. But Trump listens too much to squishy GOP.

  53. I never thought I would share this online but I’m getting tired of people who are not experienced with incest demand that children of incest should not be a reason for abortion. I am a father/daughter incest survivor. I was lucky. I didn’t get pregnant, but I know from personal experience that it takes years and years to process such violence and a young woman who is the victim will NOT be in a decent mindset to have such a child. No one on the pro-life side seems to think about the genetic issues. Father/daughter incest is like playing Russian Roulette. The chances of having an extremely damaged child are very good in such a situation. But I suppose for the sake of such child, the victim of incest should be required to carry, deliver, and possibly raise such a child. I am Pro-Life, but I will not sit in judgment of another woman who makes the choice to abort. I am not God and I cannot mete out punishment. It is enough for me to know that such women who abort under normal circumstances will suffer their own guilt and shame over it at some point.
    I once had neighbors who were first cousins and THREE times they thought they would win the incest lottery and have a normal child. Two were severely disabled, one was born with half a brain and had to be institutionalized. Is that the kind of life that should be saved? Is anyone thinking of the baby/life itself? To not think of these issues carefully before spouting that all life must be saved is ludicrous, IMO. It is not you who has to live that life. In such situations, if incest victims were made to carry and deliver such children, it would be horrific abuse on top of what they have already had to endure. If you are not an incest survivor, you simply do not know what you’re talking about. Thanks for letting me share.

    1. The issue turns on the humanity of the child. If the baby is truly a human being, then it’s life deserves protection. Certainly, carrying the child to term is difficult, but so is taking part in ending the life of an innocent child –a child as innocent as the mother.

      Abortion can’t unring the bell. The horror of the rape will always be there. Take a listen to this testimony of a father who took his daughter to an abortuary after she was raped. There are two sides to this story. https://therightscoop.com/patrick-madrid-on-why-the-rape-and-incest-arguments-for-abortion-dont-hold-water/

      1. Everything you wrote is correct and why I agree there shouldn’t be exceptions for rape and incest.

        However, we’re not in academia or seminary debating theoretical or moral questions. The president is talking about public policy. Personally, I don’t think he is any more pro-life now than he was pro-abortion 15 years ago — he’s playing to his audience. In this sense, that’s smart of him because a clear majority support restrictions on most abortions with the rape and incest exceptions.

        Pushing bills without exceptions hurts our cause. Poorly informed, recent converts, and those who only partially support the pro-life position are alienated when pro-lifers start talking about exceptions and trashing anyone who favors the exceptions. We’re splitting our movement and playing into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd for a small percentage of abortions.

        Let’s save as many babies as we can today. Let’s ban the abortions we can ban while gaining adherents. Toward that end, we should focus on banning late term abortions first (over 86% of Americans support this) to put the onus back on the pro-abortion to explain their support for infanticide. Then we can work on educating and pushing for limiting or removing the exceptions as we build a consensus for protecting those babies too.

        1. I was arguing the principle. I acknowledge that legislating involves prudential judgements.

          In the case of the Alabama law, I don’t see any compelling reason to surrender peremptorily. If the law can pass in Alabama, we should celebrate that.

          Other state legislatures should pass laws that make sense for their states.

          Regarding SCOTUS, it is exceedingly unlikely that they will overturn Roe v. Wade, because of Roberts. He is a coward. And I don’t trust Kavanaugh, either. Regardless, incest and rape exceptions are tangential to our opponents’ intentions, which is unrestricted abortion through birth.

          My position is that the states (like Alabama) should pass their laws and enforce them, disregarding the Supreme Court. An unjust law is no law at all. Make Roberts enforce his decision.

          1. If RBG has to leave the bench and the current president replaces her, then overturning Roe v Wade is very possible (now that would be an all out nomination fight to make the Kavanaugh fight look like child’s play.)

            Fair enough and I agree states should pass whatever laws fit their culture and consensus within their state — that is, after all, the point of having states.

            I am concerned about laws like Alabama’s though because of how they are used outside of Alabama. We’ve already see the pro-abortionists use it to say, “look, see how radical and extreme they are, they want to imprison women [doctors] for abortion…” (of course she didn’t add [doctors] until she was proven to be lying.

            Her argument to those leery of “bible thumpers” would be much weaker if the Alabama law included exceptions, but she would make it anyway.

            This must be a very difficult time for moderates who are repulsed and disgusted by the the infanticide position of radicals like Governor Northam, but who have a long history of fearing “fundamentalists” invading their bedrooms. …not that they have, but it’s a trope they’ve been sold and many believe is real.

    2. I’m skeptical that all your neighbors’ problem was in the parents being related. I recently read that the chances for genetic defect are somewhat greater than normal in cases of incest, but aren’t really terribly high. I’m sorry, I don’t have time to look it up again right now. I’m also very sorry for what you went through.

      Pregnancy can bring exposure that stops an incestuous relationship; abortion can cover it up and let it continue.

    3. I’m sorry for what you suffered, but I gotta say, I find your statement “Is that the kind of life that should be saved?” to be absolutely chilling.

      ” I am not God. ”

      Actually, you are putting yourself in the place of God when you make pronouncements on which lives are “worth” saving. Please reconsider. You are allowing your thoughts to go down the road of the eugenecists.

    4. No one on the pro-life side seems to think about the genetic issues.

      That’s because they’re irrelevant, outside of the fact that their genetics makes them an individual and unique human being.

      The chances of having an extremely damaged child are very good in such a situation.

      I have never met a child with physical/mental/emotional disabilities that wasn’t delighted to simply be alive. No child comes out of the womb seeking death, and I’ve never heard of one whose first words were “Kill me.”

      But I suppose for the sake of such child, the victim of incest should be required to carry, deliver, and possibly raise such a child.

      I’d like to believe that having the strength and determination to make a good (life) out of a terrible and tragic (incest/rape) would be enough motivation to see that child to term.

      After that, pass him off for adoption if you don’t think you can handle that. I wouldn’t begrudge such a victim that kind of decision.

      1. Actually it usually takes a few generations of inbreeding for there to be substantial harm. But keep on denying the humanity of those born of incest if it makes you feel better.

        1. What in all the nine hells are you even talking about? Do you even read posts before you reply to them?

          1. I think he didn’t realize you were quoting the person above, and instead thought they were your own comments. I couldn’t see your block quotes until I upvoted your comment.

    5. It’s all about you? Snuffing out life because it’s inconvenient is your answer? To answer your question, yes, most of us are thinking about the baby, and that his/her life is every bit as precious as yours.

      1. She wasn’t making it “all about” herself. She was relating horrific, personal experiences that informed her opinion.

        While I don’t agree with her final position, I respect the fact her opinion is informed, considered, and based on trauma I can’t begin to comprehend. Accordingly, even as I disagree, I can manage to be courteous and respectful toward her.

        It’s knee-jerk, flippant and insulting reactions like your, “It’s all about you?” that alienate many who are otherwise close to the pro-life position.

        This isn’t the Alamo and your no William Barrett Travis drawing a line in the dirt insisting people are 100% for you or your enemy. Even Travis said he’d hold nothing against any man who opted to leave. You seem to be ready to show 5 times as much venom at a pro-lifer who differs with you on exceptions as you are at Governor Northam who openly endorses infanticide.

        1. You really think that by questioning somebody’s position will drive them away? If you really believe that then I’m guessing you don’t think much of your fellow man, or woman that they would be so easily flipped.

          1. You weren’t “questioning” her position, which would be completely legitimate. You were calling her conceited and selfish in making it all about herself. You were insulting her position instead of countering it in a respectful manner.

            Writing is two dimensional so people can easily misinterpret tone. Your answer suggested a lack of empathy and respect, a dismissive tone. Did you mean that? I don’t know, but those sorts of attitudes tend to alienate some.

            1. I don’t have much time for emotional rationalizing, that’s how we got to where we are in the first place. That’s how we get less than 10% of the population dictating to the other 90%, through appeals to emotion.

              And yes, when somebody plays the victim card and suggests that alone makes their position unassailable, I’m going to call them out.

      2. Her argument was not “all about” her. She drew upon a horrific personal experience–one which few have had and few can ever relate to on a first-hand basis–to explain why she will not judge the victims of incest. That is not an argument about ‘convenience.’

    6. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s important we face the real trauma that exists rather than sweeping it under the rug. My mind is not changed, but you have given us some sobering thoughts to consider.

  54. Taking the all or nothing position and insisting on making less than .5% of pregnancies (rape and incest) THE issue leads to MORE abortions. The Alabama law, sadly, will strengthen and reaffirm Roe v. Wade, because they made .5% THE issue, and allowed 99.5% of abortion to be ignored.

    1. Yeah, I think that these lawmakers are really shooting the movement in the foot. They could save a lot of babies’ lives if they took a firm but compromising position on the issue. By trying to take the absolutist position, they’re just going to be overturned and their whole effort wasted. Worse, they’re going to validate the pro-choicers who for years have been saying that pro-lifers were going to eliminate all access to abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

      1. I suspect they’re hoping for SCOTUS to make a Solomon’s choice on it. But that’s a pretty dangerous gamble.

      1. No, my issue is with political neophytes who are more interested in virtue signaling and polishing their brass buttons than they are in ending murder.

        Go research the Georgia Right to Life controversy from around 2014. GA RTL was led by a perfectionist who did his darnedest to scuttle a pro-life amendment to a budget bill. The weak as water GOP leadership was willing to allow the amendment, but only if it included exceptions for rape and incest. That’s unfortunate, but at least we’d get most of what we wanted.

        The GA RTL went to work to destroy consensus for the amendment…that’s when ultra-pro-lifer Erick Erickson joined another Georgia pro-life group and GA RTL fell apart. Erickson recognized better to save many lives now than watch millions more die because we insist on perfection now.

  55. it shouldn’t be too surprising that he’s not down with the cause of completely wiping out abortion, as he used to be pro-choice.

    Given his past, I wouldn’t be at all shocked if he’s paid for a few himself.

  56. “As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the (two) exceptions – Rape, Incest…”

    A significant flaw imo.

  57. Trump isn’t an ideologue so he has mixed signals on abortion based on what he thinks is popular with the voters.

    But he is appointing constitutional, pro life judges. So no matter what he feels personally about it, let the constitution be followed and it will work itself out as a matter of human rights and liberty for the unborn.

Comments are closed.