Trump To Vote NO on Florida Amendment 4, Criticizes ‘Radical’ Abortion Access
“So, I will be voting ‘no’ for that reason.”
Former President Donald Trump announced today that he will vote against Amendment 4, a radical Florida ballot measure that seeks to enshrine the right to abortion without limitation in the state constitution.
It comes after a vague statement by him led to a furious response from pro-life supporters, claiming he was voting for the measure, even though he never said he was. See the segment that kicked off the firestorm.
"I think the six week is too short, there has to be more time," former President Trump says how he'll vote on an abortion rights amendment in Florida. pic.twitter.com/rQAdPtW9i0
— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) August 29, 2024
Trump believes more time is needed than the six weeks allowed by the current law, but he could not support the amendment due to its radical access.
In a Fox News interview:
“I think six weeks—you need more time than six weeks. I disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I first heard about it. I disagreed with it. At the same time, the Democrats are radical because allowing abortion up to nine months is just a ridiculous situation. So, I will be voting ‘no’ for that reason.”
🚨BREAKING: President Trump says he is voting NO on Florida's Amendment 4, which would legalize abortion through the 9th month:
"All of that stuff is unacceptable so I will be voting no for that reason." pic.twitter.com/a8vf6QNjqV
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 30, 2024
🔥Major win for conservatives as Donald Trump says he will vote “NO” on FL Amendment 4 citing concerns over late-term abortion:
“9 months is just a ridiculous situation.”
Eat crow, haters. Trump did the right thing.
— Cryptid Politics (pro-DeSantis) 🇺🇸🐊 (@CryptidPolitics) August 30, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I agree with Trump, but do think abortion should be legal early in pregnancy. Young people do stupid stuff, especially as it relates to sex.
They do, but fixing their mistakes doesn’t justify murder. Once you have a baby with a (rudimentary) beating heart and (minimally) functioning brain, both of which usually start around six weeks, that’s what abortion is.
Abortion, almost without exception, results in the elimination of a human person.
There are chemical oscillations that transport material across a membrane, no life required. It would seem like a beating heart but with no heart. Where else does that come up?
I worked on one for a while but don’t see the paper online.
Abortion IS legal in Florida, up to six weeks.
Yes, but many / most women don’t even know they’re pregnant until after that deadline has passed, so this doesn’t do them any good.
So the problem is real, but murder isn’t a valid solution.
Somebody should try a reasonable time limit instead of making the choice too short or too long. There’s a huge majority around 15 weeks that would be a stable decision and end the p0litical discussion. The existing choices just prolong it.
The ratchet of victory by inches rather than miles was sure effective against us conservatives. It should work the other way, too.
https://vimeo.com/325006095
15 weeks would be politically acceptable, and is surely better than nothing, but in states where 6 weeks is achievable I can’t see how one can justify not achieving it just because it would hurt politically. What’s the point of winning elections if we do it on the blood of babies?
Can you imagine Jefferson passing up a realistic chance to abolish slavery, just because it might lose him some elections?! He gave up on abolition because he decided it simply wasn’t achievable in his lifetime, so he should devote his energy to other fights and leave that one for a future generation. But if he had a chance to do it, but at a cost, he would surely be willing to pay it.
Because not wining elections results in the blood of even more babies.
Jefferson did give up a r chance to abolish slavery so that the Declaration of Independence could be signed.
There’s a difference between a cause that is just not achievable, and one that is achievable but at a cost.
If advocating a policy means you won’t win election and therefore won’t ever be able to achieve that policy anyway, then there’s no point in advocating it. Give it up and win elections so you can achieve other goods instead.
That’s what Jefferson did with abolition. He didn’t give it up because it would cost him elections, he gave it up because it just couldn’t be done in his lifetime. In his old age he encouraged younger activists to carry the banner, in the hope that they might achieve what he couldn’t.
But if something can be achieved, but at the cost of losing elections, that’s very different. If Jefferson could have permanently ended slavery, at the cost of never winning another election and thus not being able to achieve other things, I think he would have taken the deal. And I think a similar dilemma would confront us if we were able to pass and entrench a national six-week abortion ban, with a guarantee that the Dems would not be able to repeal it, at the price of letting them win more elections and ruin the country in other ways.
“if we were able to pass and entrench a national six-week abortion ban, with a guarantee that the Dems would not be able to repeal it”
Please explain why this is not an impossible hypothetical.
President Trump
A baby is a baby at 6 weeks or 15
And babies have lived at 20 weeks, maybe not well, but they have
“is generally accepted that a 28-week-old fetus that doesn’t need resuscitation is viable. However, according to WHO, fetal viability is possible after 20 weeks of fetal life (22 weeks of amenorrhea). Anthropometrical characteristics as well as clinical parameters of fetal age estimation are of high “importance
A baby is a baby to a parent who wants a baby. It’s a medical problem to others.
Ok Satan
It’s a baby no matter how immoral you happen to be
The language has conventions that determine what you’re inclined to say. It’s all nuance. If you don’t want a baby, it’s a fetus. It has no social relation to you, presently or in plans. A baby requires those to justify the word baby.
I think the same was true of the names “freeman” vs “slave”. One was a human with certain rights, the other was chattel property.
I guess that was nuance too. Want to kill it? Fetus or slave, its your property to do with what you will.
Same human being, with or without nuance.
Freeman vs slave was legal status. Slave owners knew perfectly well that slaves were humans. The thing the tyrant slave owner didn’t want was for his slaves to see him as human.
Slavery was a hold-over from when it made sense – in a hit the guy on the head and take his stuff economy. Enslaving was better than killing, economically. It was still economically inefficient though because so much capital was spent on defense.
The free market and rule of law allowed slaves to contribute more to society working in their own interests and slavery became economically obsolete.
It wasn’t about being human or not.
What you’re inclined to say doesn’t affect reality at all. Isn’t that what we’re up against with the whole trans issue?
At whatever age a baby becomes a person, with the inalienable and absolute right not to be killed (except in circumstances that would also justify killing an adult), it doesn’t matter what people call it, or in what language.
Right and wrong are objective, not dependent on cultural or linguistic norms. Either something is right for all people, even if their language makes it sound wrong, or it’s wrong for all people even if their language makes it sound right.
So language only matters when figuring out what is politically achievable. Once you’ve determined that doing the right thing is achievable, even at a cost, then language can no longer give an excuse not to do it.
Language is what you think with when you make all those absolute statements. It’s like the frames of your glasses – you don’t notice them. But language deceives most of all the most careful thinkers because they put words on holiday, using them in contexts where there’s no convention for what they mean.
Words follow interests, that’s where they come from. If you want to reason your way into a dilemma, use them where there’s no interest that defined them. How do I know this is a ball of wax? I strictly speaking only see the front surface, and my senses my be deceiving me, etc. It’s important that nobody is interested in a ball of wax or else all sorts of answers would come up. How do I know it’s a goldfinch? By the colors, the wings, the way it stands to feed, its size, its call or song. Ordinary stuff intrudes in the argument from where the word was not on holiday.
There’s an on-off switch that you can be interest in, in language. Wittgenstein “Philosophical Investigations” was the first to be interested in it.
If you’re interested in human where it has no historical application, you’ll run into the same problem. “What you’re inclined to say” is very important as a diagnostic tool.
Language may be how we describe reality, but it doesn’t determine reality. Reality exists independently of any language. Languages are useful only to the extent that they correctly describe it.
Reality is quantum mechanics and quarks and so forth. But then there’s language, which itself is attached to quantum mechanics and quarks. Language organizes those realities into words, by realities with an interest in it. That’s levering language’s reality a long way from what’s going on.
Not to deny that there’s a problem with “interest.”
You don’t understand rhhardin. He isn’t immoral. He is amoral. Completely and proudly amoral.
And how does that change after birth? Perhaps we should adopt the Romans’ law, and allow a father to kill his children at any age?
You can eliminate the birth bright line by noticing that you learn to be human, so nothing much changes at birth except you can start learning. My four year old wants to pay for dinner, I hand him the cash and he hands it to the cashier. Did he pay for dinner? Not fully, but if we act as if he had, he learns the role. It’s constant encouragement.
At birth a jokester might say, “He looks like a tiny human.” The joke is that he is a tiny human, except the inclination to say human is being stretched owing to so many needed things for being human being not yet there.
So: no bright line at conception, no bright line at birth, except at birth society can take an interest and have a meaningful relationship to the baby.
You can do somewhat the same thing with sonograms, at the point the fetus can be portrayed as cute. That’s abut 15 weeks and works as a soft bright line, via majority vote.
Again you’re talking politics, not right and wrong. It’s as if you think it was just fine for Roman fathers to slaughter their adult children, or their slaves, if they felt like it.
You’d have to have some historical imagination, what was it like so that that seemed reasonable. It’s the leftists’ mistake to believe that they’re the first moral generation and everybody else has been immoral.
God wanted Abraham to kill his son. The first dilemma. That was several covenants back though. Then he went after Moses. You can see why rule changes come up.
No, God didn’t want Abraham to kill his son, which is why He stopped him just in time. He wanted Abraham to subordinate his own sense of right and wrong to God’s will, and to be willing to obey whatever God told him even if went against his own sense of right and wrong, even if it went against everything he had spent his whole life teaching, even if it would make him a laughingstock and prevent him ever teaching again, even if it would leave him childless at 137. He wanted him to accept that whatever God says is right, regardless of all considerations. Abraham passed the test, showed exactly this obedience and submission, so God canceled the command before he could carry it out.
If God were to tell someone today to abort a baby he should do it. If God were to tell someone today to take a machine gun and kill dozens of people he should do it. But God hasn’t told anyone to do that; He’s told us all not to.
Thank you.
Abraham thought so.
Stanley Cavell diagnoses the abortion banners as people who see something and want you to see it the same way, but lack a way to express that want. Most of the pro-choice people can see it that way but can see it another way to0. It’s sort of a misunderstanding of misunderstandings.
I agree with both of Trump’s conclusions. The goal is to end abortion, but our society is too corrupt for it to be possible to do it quickly via legislation.
The goal of ending all murder is also possible to achieve via legislation. The purpose of the laws against murder is not to abolish murder altogether; it’s to deter as many as possible, and to give justice to the victims in those cases where it’s not deterrable.
Oops, that should have been “impossible”.
I didn’t say “never”. I said “quickly”.
Pregnancies last 10 months in Japan.
And Arab centenarians are several years younger than centenarians in any other culture.
In both cases reality doesn’t change; the only change is in what you call things. Japanese women aren’t pregnant any longer than English-speaking women; the number of days is the same, the only difference is in the definition of the arbitrary term “month”. Likewise Arabs age at the same rate as everyone else; the only difference is in the definition of the arbitrary terms “year” and “century”.
Japanese count from the last period.
So do we. And we get nine months, not ten. Japanese get ten months because they use shorter months.
A baby in the womb is a baby. Trump did so much by helping overturn Roe v Wade. He is also right to focus on late term, which most Americans support and which will win more supporters.
To move the window at the state level, though, the key fight is to win the culture battle first. Politics is downstream from culture as Breitbart said.
Restoring a reverence for life takes time and required persuasion to sustain it.
It means fighting back in news, education, entertainment to tell the compelling story that wins people over …
It takes time and persuasion – it’s sad that we are in this spot but it’s the reality.
Without a culture that respects life (and Canada is going the other direction) nothing else will be achieved for long.
It took 50 years to overturn Roe v Wade … it could take 50 more years to persuade people to respect life to the degree that we should.
It’s the next battle.
Everybody’s for persuasion. The other side has persuasion too. In this case Marge Piercy’s poem right to life gives the pro-choice argument that you have to counter
it’s usually online somewhere but sometimes hard to find with the correct line breaks…. here
https://www.readingmotherhood.com/post/marge-piercy-right-to-life
It’s a stupid and wicked poem, because it completely mischaracterizes the issue, the only issue, and instead flings bizarre paranoid accusations at pro-lifers. It also depends on the obviously false assumption that pro-lifers are men.
Perhaps to a poet the only issue isn’t an issue. It’s the language thing again. A fetus isn’t a baby.
Yes, it is, and it doesn’t matter whether you agree.
Language thing: “A baby in the womb is a baby.” That’s not a tautology. The first “baby” is used broadly – anything is to qualify – and the second “baby” is used narrowly, namely the babies mothers take care of in real life.
The reason that it doesn’t feel like a tautology is that it’s not. They’re not the same.
My state does convenience abortion until birth. What’s funny is that most people don’t actually support late term abortions but the politicians have decided we need it. What’s not surprising is that most people here don’t know that convenience abortions past viability are legal. When I tell them, they either blank out or claim it’s not true.
Most people in the country support 1st trimester abortions. The whole point of sending Roe V Wade back to the states was to allow the people to decide but politicians on both sides of the issue have decided the people need to be given extremes as the only choice.
No, most people don’t support abortion on first trimester, most people don’t support abortion
Now young women, yes , they do as do young men who don’t want to step up and be a man and father and often pressure young girls to abort.
There are so many birth control’ options now, vs 50 years ago , it’s ridiculous that men and women use abortion as birth control, terrible, monstrous.
Unfortunately that is not true. There are states where it’s true, and those are the states where a six-week ban has been achieved, but in most states the public is just not there, so 15 weeks is probably the best that can be achieved. A 15-week national ban might well receive majority support, but a 6-week one would be rejected, so there’s no point in trying for it.
Right, and if you try for it, it becomes the Republican brand in the eyes of the opposition and you never win an election.
That doesn’t change the fact that if you can do it then it’s the right thing to do.
Yes it is true
No, it just isn’t. I wish it were, but it’s not.
Can’t win on the issue. He has hinted at 15 weeks, but it’s up to the states.
15 weeks seems reasonable. Are people who are too irresponsible to use birth control likely to be responsible parents?
Children and society deserve responsible parents, we all suffer when they are not.
Whether a child’s parents are likely to be responsible isn’t relevant. You don’t kill a child just because he has crappy parents.
RFK jr sounding as if he’s the VP amd not Vance
Feisty Hayseed
August 31, 2024 1:55 am
RFK Jr commits to Draining the Swamp
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1829586418181521754
As a Florida resident I am voting No also. I think 12-15 weeks should be the limit. I hate abortion. It’s because as a young man my former wife was pregnant before we were married. We decided it was a better option. Young and stupid equals a haunted past. I think about it all the time. I would prefer zero, but I get it.
So you get it and a human dies
I see
God gave man Free Will and unwanted pregnancies have been part of humanity since Day One, which does not mean it’s right; it’s just a fact.
Personally, I believe Life begins at conception and is precious. Pregnancy is a woman’s chance to participate in assisting in a miracle so to me, aborting that miracle is both revolting and heartbreaking.
I would pray women realize the power they possess and not abort. That said, I’m voting “No” on Amendment 4
IMO an abortion should be reserved for rare instances of medical necessity such as an ectopic pregnancy. There are a large number of birth control products. In addition a woman can only become pregnant for a roughly 8 day at most interval each month centered on her cycle which she can track with a good degree of accuracy. Add a couple days on the front end to refrain from sexual activity and it becomes far less likely to become pregnant. She can require her sexual partner to wear a condom. She can restrict sexual activity to long-term committed relationships. She can always choose celibacy.
If she ignores all those then plan B is there. Women have always had higher risk from sexual activity than men and modern 21st century tech and feminism doesn’t change that. Unplanned pregnancy will decrease when women become more discerning in choosing their sexual partners and in limiting sex to long-term committed relationships with men who want to be/are their husbands and who are good candidates to be fathers for their children.
Ectopic prengances are NOT viable. The embryo cannot develop into a baby; removing it is NOT an abortion.
Agreed on the point of not viable and I extend this logic to blastocyst prior to attachment of the uterus which is equally not viable.
So it’s all the woman’s faullt
To a great extent, abortion on demand has been the work of the gender feminists. They insisted that women should emulate the sexual misbehavior of men.
According to traditional common law, life began at the “quickening,” when the baby could be felt to move, around 16 weeks. (“quick,” as in “the quick and the dead,” i.e. life.”) Intentional abortion after this point was considered murder.
Elective abortions, up to 15 weeks, should be legal but so shameful that women keep that info to themselves and close family and friends. i horrifies me that some women PROUDLY proclaim their “choice.”
The ONE exception I could reluctantly support is that of a child’s having been raped (incest is rape). Adult rape victims must have the support to seek medical attention immediately to prevent potential consequences.
This is about amending the state constitution to recognize abortion “rights.” As a Florida resident, I am voting “no,” as well.
It’s likely to win like all the other constitutional amendments in states with restrictive abortion laws. The right to life people get slaughtered owing to no decent choice being offered. It’s one extreme or the other, the people always choose the other, thinking that one extreme is likely to be very common and the other very rare.
Enshrine feticide into the Bill of Rights.
This was a clumsy, unforced error by Trump. This question was PLAINLY predictable. Of course someone was going to ask him about the prospective constitutional amendment in his home state that made late-term abortions a RIGHT. The answer he gave was Kamalaesque and it was obvious it was going to need to be cleaned up.
I think he’s gotten tired and has been making more errors in what he says
I can’t even imagine how little sleep he gets
Perhaps a review of moral relativism would help. Maybe even rhhardin would read it.
https://blogs.cornell.edu/envirobaer/religion-ethics-and-the-environment/course-syllabus/relativism/
Nope. Rhhardin isn’t immoral. He’s amoral. That’s his thing.
There is the objective, the subjective, and the law. Objectively life begins at the moment of conception and for humans it is a distinctly human life which is the genetic offspring of its parents. It is not an indistinct clump of cells. Subjectively this new human life may bring joy or anguish. The law is often a compromise between the objective and the subjective. At what point does an objective human life gain the “legal” status of a human life. That is the crux of the issue.
I’m for life at conception, but whatever we agree upon, or disagree upon, I feel strongly that if abortion is permitted at ANY stage of pregnancy, it should be viewed as the euthanasia of a fetus, and the medical procedure should be conducted accordingly. When we put dogs down, we don’t rip their limbs off or drown them in saline.
For that matter, the death sentence of a convicted murderer is carried out with more civility and mercy than the abortion of an unborn fetus. Where are the ethical standards for these professional abortionists? Why are there no legal, medical, and ethical standards? Could it be that the aborted child, sadly unwanted, even by his own parents, has no legal advocate with standing to bring suit for his cruel death? Without fear of lawsuits, these abortionists believe they have a license to inflict cruel death upon the unborn. Unbelievable.
Leave a Comment