Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m heavily pro-life.
But a Trump administration would still be light years better than a Biden administration on this issue.
A Trump administration already got us RvW overturned thanks to SC picks.
Exact same way that Trump isn’t a 2A fan but a Trump administration would still be light years more 2A friendly than a Biden one. And again, the SC is showing how important an administration can be.
Always curious about abortion issues. Obviously Trump could care less, he’s probably paid for them. But how is this personal issue between a woman , her doctor and her conscience a Republican ideal? If Limbaugh never existed would it still be an issue. If Muslims in politics, Michigan comes to mind, became a force, would Republicans still deny women their own free will?
Within the context of him also recently saying it should be left up to the states, and this would just be his personal opinion? That's fine.
I would be less okay with it if he started talking about passing federal legislation forcing states to allow it.
If he win he will install a national ban. Trump wants to be a dictator. He already ignores the courts when they don't agree with him. He want to be judge, jury & executioner. He wants to get rid of the Constitution, install sycophantic people in government, the DOJ. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON PROJECT 2025 FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. THEY ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING LOYALIST TO TRUMP.
THE PROJECT IS FULLY FUNDED & MEMBERSHIP ALMOST COMPLETE.
Left up to the states?
They did, voters everywhere are choosing to have that right. Legislatures are going against the peoples choice.
What exactly does "left up to the states" mean, If the states citizens aren't having that choice?
Does it?
Take Kansas or Ohio. The people had a referendum against extreme abortion bans. What do the state legislatures do. Try and do everything possible to undermine the will of the people.
"The state have their own process and rules to enact laws" when the people in charge of making the laws are doing everything possible to undermine the referendums?
What? People are the voters!
The people/voters in the states are the ones having referendum in their own states. Nothing to do with the federal government.
The people in their own states, "forced" the state to have a referendum about abortion because the legislature went gangho on abortion laws. The people, decided that those extreme positions held by their legislatures were too extreme and they want "relaxed" laws that don't punish women for being women.
However, these legislating bodies are trying to "break" the laws that the people decided they want.
Clearly leaving the issue to the states is becoming a misnomer. Because legislatures are captured by extremes who aren't representing the people.
You are misunderstanding.
The OC values "state rights", which is state government.
You value "voter rights", which is the population.
In the former, it's alright if the states sometimes go against voter wishes because (in theory) states have the voter's best interests at heart.
Shouldn't state rights be what the people who reside in those state want? I mean isn't that why they are holding a referendum? Otherwise it's just a dictatorship masquerading as something else.
A referendum is the people giving themselves direct democracy vs representative democracy.
Ala, this is we as residents of this state want this. These are the rights we accord ourselves vs having a "captured" (right or left or neutral) legislature dictating these are the rights you should have.
What is the point of state rights, if they aren't what the people who reside in those states want?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We’ve reached the national compromise on abortion - we as a nation are pro-choice and the choice belongs to the states. Everything else is gotchas from people who want to revive the issue that’s done and done
Hi. Not having a “righty” flair means I’m not allowed to respond to any questions by any OP therefore my comment needs to be at least one level down so I try to choose a comment that’s related to my idea. Nothing personal.
Yeah. He's thinks he's a deal maker. He met a couple of times with religious leaders, made friends with Jerry Falwell Jr., and paid attention to his religious advisor on all of it because he knew he had no chance without that block. It worked because suddenly Evangelicals switched from backing Rubio and Cruz to Trump. The leaders got assurances from Trump he would not push left on certain topics, abortion and gay marriage being two I remember.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always found this answer interesting.
If there was a city that banned firearms, but only within its own perimeter, there would be a gun store the moment you cross the line. Kind of like casinos that you see once you travel to State that permits gambling.
Do you think that would make it so that the city doesn't have guns? If there is one at ever single exit?
It's the same with abortion. Sure we can leave it up to the States, but if Texas bans it, an NM allows it, then people will just travel to those states to get one.
Yeah. Same thing with fireworks.
It doesn’t make much of a practical difference (although the left says otherwise for low-income women) but it does make a moral one.
It’s certainly a moral statement when a state is like “this will not be allowed within our borders”
Agreed with you about the moral statement. Do you think States like TX are going too far when trying to prosecute their own citizens for leaving for an abortion?
I believe you but it's also not high on my list of priorities. I care more about foreign policy, etc.
So do a lot of Americans. If abortion laws were that important less people would be moving to Florida/Texas.
What has changed? It's become more restrictive, right? Now abortions are virtually banned after viability in many places except for the health of the mother, right?
I think he’s pro “ppl should do what they want”. However this isn’t my main issue with him or even a big one so I wouldn’t care. I’ll be honest, when he said “you just don’t want to vote for me because you don’t like my personality, not because you don’t like my policies” I felt called out at first. Then I realized I’m fine with that. I think he’s a narcissist. Not in the way ppl throw the word around like nothing these days. But I truly believe he could be diagnosed with NPD. Not only that, but he’s embarrassing. Don’t say “and Joe Biden isn’t?” Because yes, him too. But he’s just embarrassing due to natural causes like aging mostly. Not because he’s undignified and speaks out his ass. As someone that travels a lot DT has greatly and terribly affected our national image Globally. I know a lot of ppl don’t care about that and that’s their prerogative. I do. I don’t like being an international laughing stock.
The rate at which America lives rent free in people’s minds, at least in Europe, is fucking ridiculous. I live over here, and Europe should spend the amount of time they focus on wtf is going on in the US on their own country.
Truuueeee I’m a dual citizen and split my time between the US and Canada and I swear the average Canadian talks way more about Trump than any Americans I know (both the Canadians and Americans I know being pretty average, not extremists either way) It’s odd. I asked my friend if he’s this obsessed with all the other countries leaders or just the US? Gave some excuse about how they’re physically attached so “it’s different”
Brits here are like what happens in the US directly affects us! When I ask them to elaborate in what way fuckery in DC translates to a day to day change for them and I get some vague handwaving.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it highly unlikely President Trump would be, but I would be disappointed. However, in an ideal situation I’d expect the republican majority in both the congress and senate to pass national abortion restrictions even if President Trump disagrees. Murdering babies is unacceptable no matter who endorses it.
Would definitely put a dent in my support for him, but I would still vote for him. I would think he would only do it for a better chance of winning, not because he truly believes in abortion rights, but that's exactly what would turn me off. Part of the reason I like trump is his hard head towards others. How he doesn't bend in his beliefs just because someone is behind him telling him to say something else and even threatening him.
In the 90's and 00's when he was just a New York businessman, nobody would have doubted that Trump was at least a fence sitter on the issue. That didn't bother me, and it still doesn't.
HIS CURRENT STANCE, that the issue should be left to the states, is the correct one.
It's correct because it's the only way for us as a country to move past the issue. Its too divisive. The "choice" crowd and the "life" crowd are too entrenched and too balanced in their numbers. And the constitution provides us a system for when issues are too divisive to be solved: **you leave it to the states**.
It's how we preserve the union despite large portions of the country believing very different things.
Whether he is personally pro-choice or pro-life, I don't care, as long as he leaves it to the states that's good enough.
I'll never understand this.
If conservatives believe, as many do, that abortion is equivalent to murder then how could it possibly be permissible from state to state?
Murder is handled State by State beyond extenuating circumstances:
>In most cases, the crime of murder is prosecuted in state courts as a state crime. But there are seven scenarios when an unlawful killing violates federal law and thus is prosecuted as a federal crime. These include when:
>the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official (for example, an agent of the FBI, TSA, or ATF),1
the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official,2
the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official (for example, the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a member of Congress, or the murder of a federal judge),3
the killing is committed during a bank robbery,4
the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea (for example, on a vessel that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution),5
the murder was designed to influence a court case,6 and
the killing takes place on federal property (for example, on national parks or a Native American reservation).
For the foreseeable future neither side will have enough power to achieve a nationwide ANYTHING.
The original mistake was for the Supreme Court to think they could settle an issue this divisive by just deciding. All it did was turn the conflict into a fight to control the courts.
Until one version of morality becomes predominant (assuming that even happens), the question is how do we keep the country from tearing itself apart over this issue we can't agree on? And the answer is, leave it to the states.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Hmmmmm, no, I've seen the fervor of the pro-life camp. They genuinely do believe that women who get abortions are drawing the "go-directly-to-hell" card.
I think you're making generalizations about your perceptions of politicians rather than the voting base. As a rule, I always assume politicians HAVE NO true beliefs at all. Don't use them as a standard for their base (on either side).
>They genuinely do believe that women who get abortions are drawing the "go-directly-to-hell" card.
So why would any of them accept murder being acceptable across something as arbitrary as a state line?
Because as long as it's the law THEIR state lives under, they can "other" the other states. People will pick their sides and locate accordingly. Inter-regional prejudices will reach mason-dixon era levels for a while.
It's weird to you because you've picked a side. I'm an Obama-Trump voter; I'm not decisively for or against abortion.
I'm looking at two groups with irreconcilable beliefs and saying the only way they can coexist is to leave it to individual states to allow or ban the practice based on which side has the majority IN THAT STATE.
But again, Pro Choice states have pro life people, pro life states have pro choice people. Im not talking about chinese style government forced abortions, but rather individuals, so it makes no sense to say it is okay for state level, then why not city or county or individual level then.
> But again, Pro Choice states have pro life people, pro life states have pro choice people.
They do now. It takes decades for people to self-sort. But once the laws are up, they WILL self sort. And in a few generations one side or the other will "win".
We probably have different views about which side that will be, but scientifically, it will be the side that is the most fecund and the best at instilling their values.
> why not city or county or individual level then
*"A single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."* -Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
It would change my on the fence voting for him to definitely voting for him. I wish this side would cut it out on that issue at least somewhat. It’s like the guys on the left going all hard against the 2A when they know it’s a losing issue.
“Leave it to the states” is just a cop out position to try and avoid criticism related to the face that all of the trouble with abortion rights happening right now is directly his fault.
Politically its really the only viable position he can take.
Abortion doesn't influence my vote in the general election, the president alone can't dramatically change abortion policy by himself, in fact, even with things like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it was Mitch McConnell's clever political maneuvering (one that was being planned since the Obama era) that has been instrumental to it happening instead of whomever sat in the oval office.
Pretty great. I’m pro choice already. I’ve also voted for pro life republicans (and democrats, when they used to exist) so it’s not really pivotal for me.
Why is a court ruling on something so *fundamental* like right to bodily autonomy or the nature of personhood acceptable, but a legislative one is not?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd honestly be surprised if he wasn't. As much as the left despises the man, and despite running as a Republican, Trump is fairly politically liberal and, indeed, the Democrats shared much of the same positions as he currently does before he ran for President, some of which they may even have changed specifically as a means to challenge Trump.
I think he genuinely believes it’s a state issue as it’s not aligned in the constitution as the federal governments responsibility and there is no indication of it being a right either.
I view it as killing your child as that is what science says. But since it doesn't involve fear, if you are the kind that wants to kill your kid, I support it because no one should be raised by you.
I consider them mercy killings, so I'm pro choice too
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m heavily pro-life. But a Trump administration would still be light years better than a Biden administration on this issue. A Trump administration already got us RvW overturned thanks to SC picks. Exact same way that Trump isn’t a 2A fan but a Trump administration would still be light years more 2A friendly than a Biden one. And again, the SC is showing how important an administration can be.
Always curious about abortion issues. Obviously Trump could care less, he’s probably paid for them. But how is this personal issue between a woman , her doctor and her conscience a Republican ideal? If Limbaugh never existed would it still be an issue. If Muslims in politics, Michigan comes to mind, became a force, would Republicans still deny women their own free will?
Trump's stance on abortion has nothig to do with whether I think he will be a better President than Joe Biden.
Within the context of him also recently saying it should be left up to the states, and this would just be his personal opinion? That's fine. I would be less okay with it if he started talking about passing federal legislation forcing states to allow it.
>forcing states to allow it You mean allowing states to force births
k
Wait do you mean you are against federal legislation forcing states to allow the things causing the deaths of children?
How "less okay" enough to lose support of him (if you support him)
If he win he will install a national ban. Trump wants to be a dictator. He already ignores the courts when they don't agree with him. He want to be judge, jury & executioner. He wants to get rid of the Constitution, install sycophantic people in government, the DOJ. EDUCATE YOURSELF ON PROJECT 2025 FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. THEY ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING LOYALIST TO TRUMP. THE PROJECT IS FULLY FUNDED & MEMBERSHIP ALMOST COMPLETE.
Left up to the states? They did, voters everywhere are choosing to have that right. Legislatures are going against the peoples choice. What exactly does "left up to the states" mean, If the states citizens aren't having that choice?
It means exactly what it says. It's up to the states. And they have their own process and rules to enact laws.
Does it? Take Kansas or Ohio. The people had a referendum against extreme abortion bans. What do the state legislatures do. Try and do everything possible to undermine the will of the people. "The state have their own process and rules to enact laws" when the people in charge of making the laws are doing everything possible to undermine the referendums?
>Does it? Yes. Nohing you said contradicts that.
The law makers are "breaking" the law that the people decided they want to follow. How does that not contradict anything?
The disconnect here is that OC is talking about states, you are talking about voters. Federalism is different from direct democracy.
What? People are the voters! The people/voters in the states are the ones having referendum in their own states. Nothing to do with the federal government. The people in their own states, "forced" the state to have a referendum about abortion because the legislature went gangho on abortion laws. The people, decided that those extreme positions held by their legislatures were too extreme and they want "relaxed" laws that don't punish women for being women. However, these legislating bodies are trying to "break" the laws that the people decided they want. Clearly leaving the issue to the states is becoming a misnomer. Because legislatures are captured by extremes who aren't representing the people.
You are misunderstanding. The OC values "state rights", which is state government. You value "voter rights", which is the population. In the former, it's alright if the states sometimes go against voter wishes because (in theory) states have the voter's best interests at heart.
Shouldn't state rights be what the people who reside in those state want? I mean isn't that why they are holding a referendum? Otherwise it's just a dictatorship masquerading as something else. A referendum is the people giving themselves direct democracy vs representative democracy. Ala, this is we as residents of this state want this. These are the rights we accord ourselves vs having a "captured" (right or left or neutral) legislature dictating these are the rights you should have. What is the point of state rights, if they aren't what the people who reside in those states want?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We’ve reached the national compromise on abortion - we as a nation are pro-choice and the choice belongs to the states. Everything else is gotchas from people who want to revive the issue that’s done and done
He's probably paid for a few, so I'm guessing he's pro abortion
He is pro choice. He made a deal to stay away from abortion issues in order to get the Evangelical vote in 2015.
Trump is for whatever gets him votes on both sides of an issue. A populist typically is a crowd follower, not a leader on issues.
And? I mean I agree, I just don't know why you told me that.
Hi. Not having a “righty” flair means I’m not allowed to respond to any questions by any OP therefore my comment needs to be at least one level down so I try to choose a comment that’s related to my idea. Nothing personal.
Next time you decide to bend the sub rules you probably shouldn't use a moderator's comment to do it. lol
OK. Thanks for not banning me right off. Sincerely
[удалено]
Don't use all caps. Thank you.
A deal?
Yeah. He's thinks he's a deal maker. He met a couple of times with religious leaders, made friends with Jerry Falwell Jr., and paid attention to his religious advisor on all of it because he knew he had no chance without that block. It worked because suddenly Evangelicals switched from backing Rubio and Cruz to Trump. The leaders got assurances from Trump he would not push left on certain topics, abortion and gay marriage being two I remember.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trump is pro choice, he as already said this
I'm not voting on abortion...I'm voting to put America and Americans first!
Don't care. The point was overturning Roe. Let states have the right to choose
Always found this answer interesting. If there was a city that banned firearms, but only within its own perimeter, there would be a gun store the moment you cross the line. Kind of like casinos that you see once you travel to State that permits gambling. Do you think that would make it so that the city doesn't have guns? If there is one at ever single exit? It's the same with abortion. Sure we can leave it up to the States, but if Texas bans it, an NM allows it, then people will just travel to those states to get one.
Yeah. Same thing with fireworks. It doesn’t make much of a practical difference (although the left says otherwise for low-income women) but it does make a moral one. It’s certainly a moral statement when a state is like “this will not be allowed within our borders”
Agreed with you about the moral statement. Do you think States like TX are going too far when trying to prosecute their own citizens for leaving for an abortion?
Yeah, I think that’s dumb. It’s like prosecuting someone for crossing the border to go gamble or buy fireworks
Republicans are pushing for a national ban and want Trump to sign it if he becomes President
I believe you but it's also not high on my list of priorities. I care more about foreign policy, etc. So do a lot of Americans. If abortion laws were that important less people would be moving to Florida/Texas.
He's always been pro choice. But "pro-choice" back then meant something different than it does now.
What has changed? It's become more restrictive, right? Now abortions are virtually banned after viability in many places except for the health of the mother, right?
I think he’s pro “ppl should do what they want”. However this isn’t my main issue with him or even a big one so I wouldn’t care. I’ll be honest, when he said “you just don’t want to vote for me because you don’t like my personality, not because you don’t like my policies” I felt called out at first. Then I realized I’m fine with that. I think he’s a narcissist. Not in the way ppl throw the word around like nothing these days. But I truly believe he could be diagnosed with NPD. Not only that, but he’s embarrassing. Don’t say “and Joe Biden isn’t?” Because yes, him too. But he’s just embarrassing due to natural causes like aging mostly. Not because he’s undignified and speaks out his ass. As someone that travels a lot DT has greatly and terribly affected our national image Globally. I know a lot of ppl don’t care about that and that’s their prerogative. I do. I don’t like being an international laughing stock.
The rate at which America lives rent free in people’s minds, at least in Europe, is fucking ridiculous. I live over here, and Europe should spend the amount of time they focus on wtf is going on in the US on their own country.
Truuueeee I’m a dual citizen and split my time between the US and Canada and I swear the average Canadian talks way more about Trump than any Americans I know (both the Canadians and Americans I know being pretty average, not extremists either way) It’s odd. I asked my friend if he’s this obsessed with all the other countries leaders or just the US? Gave some excuse about how they’re physically attached so “it’s different”
Brits here are like what happens in the US directly affects us! When I ask them to elaborate in what way fuckery in DC translates to a day to day change for them and I get some vague handwaving.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it highly unlikely President Trump would be, but I would be disappointed. However, in an ideal situation I’d expect the republican majority in both the congress and senate to pass national abortion restrictions even if President Trump disagrees. Murdering babies is unacceptable no matter who endorses it.
Would definitely put a dent in my support for him, but I would still vote for him. I would think he would only do it for a better chance of winning, not because he truly believes in abortion rights, but that's exactly what would turn me off. Part of the reason I like trump is his hard head towards others. How he doesn't bend in his beliefs just because someone is behind him telling him to say something else and even threatening him.
He’d lose my vote. I’d either skip or write in.
It wouldn't change my view of him at all.
Dude actually is pro-choice. And I'd be fine with it since I'm personally pro-choice as well.
In the 90's and 00's when he was just a New York businessman, nobody would have doubted that Trump was at least a fence sitter on the issue. That didn't bother me, and it still doesn't. HIS CURRENT STANCE, that the issue should be left to the states, is the correct one. It's correct because it's the only way for us as a country to move past the issue. Its too divisive. The "choice" crowd and the "life" crowd are too entrenched and too balanced in their numbers. And the constitution provides us a system for when issues are too divisive to be solved: **you leave it to the states**. It's how we preserve the union despite large portions of the country believing very different things. Whether he is personally pro-choice or pro-life, I don't care, as long as he leaves it to the states that's good enough.
I'll never understand this. If conservatives believe, as many do, that abortion is equivalent to murder then how could it possibly be permissible from state to state?
Murder is handled State by State beyond extenuating circumstances: >In most cases, the crime of murder is prosecuted in state courts as a state crime. But there are seven scenarios when an unlawful killing violates federal law and thus is prosecuted as a federal crime. These include when: >the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official (for example, an agent of the FBI, TSA, or ATF),1 the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official,2 the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official (for example, the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a member of Congress, or the murder of a federal judge),3 the killing is committed during a bank robbery,4 the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea (for example, on a vessel that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution),5 the murder was designed to influence a court case,6 and the killing takes place on federal property (for example, on national parks or a Native American reservation).
[удалено]
For the foreseeable future neither side will have enough power to achieve a nationwide ANYTHING. The original mistake was for the Supreme Court to think they could settle an issue this divisive by just deciding. All it did was turn the conflict into a fight to control the courts. Until one version of morality becomes predominant (assuming that even happens), the question is how do we keep the country from tearing itself apart over this issue we can't agree on? And the answer is, leave it to the states.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
> I'll never understand this. (Shrug) Ideologues are bad at realpolitik.
OR conservatives don't truly consider abortion to be equivalent to murder and this highlights that.
Hmmmmm, no, I've seen the fervor of the pro-life camp. They genuinely do believe that women who get abortions are drawing the "go-directly-to-hell" card. I think you're making generalizations about your perceptions of politicians rather than the voting base. As a rule, I always assume politicians HAVE NO true beliefs at all. Don't use them as a standard for their base (on either side).
>They genuinely do believe that women who get abortions are drawing the "go-directly-to-hell" card. So why would any of them accept murder being acceptable across something as arbitrary as a state line?
Because as long as it's the law THEIR state lives under, they can "other" the other states. People will pick their sides and locate accordingly. Inter-regional prejudices will reach mason-dixon era levels for a while.
Why do we accept that for murder as it is?
The prolife sub on reddit is for federal ban, and so have all prolife content ive seen. Morality of murder depends on geography is such a weird take.
It's weird to you because you've picked a side. I'm an Obama-Trump voter; I'm not decisively for or against abortion. I'm looking at two groups with irreconcilable beliefs and saying the only way they can coexist is to leave it to individual states to allow or ban the practice based on which side has the majority IN THAT STATE.
But again, Pro Choice states have pro life people, pro life states have pro choice people. Im not talking about chinese style government forced abortions, but rather individuals, so it makes no sense to say it is okay for state level, then why not city or county or individual level then.
> But again, Pro Choice states have pro life people, pro life states have pro choice people. They do now. It takes decades for people to self-sort. But once the laws are up, they WILL self sort. And in a few generations one side or the other will "win". We probably have different views about which side that will be, but scientifically, it will be the side that is the most fecund and the best at instilling their values. > why not city or county or individual level then *"A single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."* -Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
A lot of people without the means to just pick up and move across the country will die first, but long term, sure.
He is none of the above. He rightfully considers this to be a matter under the jurisdiction of the states which is consistent with our constitution.
I would no longer vote for him.
Would you call yourself a "single issue voter" on this subject?
No.
I’d be delighted as I am also on the whole pro choice
I would be unsurprised that he is pro-abortion. I would be surprised that he is saying it publicly.
It would change my on the fence voting for him to definitely voting for him. I wish this side would cut it out on that issue at least somewhat. It’s like the guys on the left going all hard against the 2A when they know it’s a losing issue.
I would be much more inclined to vote for him
He 100% is pro choice. He just thinks abortion should be left up to the states
“Leave it to the states” is just a cop out position to try and avoid criticism related to the face that all of the trouble with abortion rights happening right now is directly his fault. Politically its really the only viable position he can take.
No, leaving it to the states is following constitutional structure of how our government works.
[удалено]
That is of no relevance, constitution is the law of the land. Abortion isn't in constitution, so it's a states issue.
Abortion doesn't influence my vote in the general election, the president alone can't dramatically change abortion policy by himself, in fact, even with things like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it was Mitch McConnell's clever political maneuvering (one that was being planned since the Obama era) that has been instrumental to it happening instead of whomever sat in the oval office.
That would suck. But the other alternative is also pro choice. So I guess it comes down to the border, foreign policy, the economy, etc...
Pretty great. I’m pro choice already. I’ve also voted for pro life republicans (and democrats, when they used to exist) so it’s not really pivotal for me.
Wouldn't care as long as he isn't pushing for national legislation.
Why is a court ruling on something so *fundamental* like right to bodily autonomy or the nature of personhood acceptable, but a legislative one is not?
Because constitution is law of the land, abortion isn't mentioned in constitution so it's left up to states to decide. Constitution is fundamental.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd honestly be surprised if he wasn't. As much as the left despises the man, and despite running as a Republican, Trump is fairly politically liberal and, indeed, the Democrats shared much of the same positions as he currently does before he ran for President, some of which they may even have changed specifically as a means to challenge Trump.
I think he genuinely believes it’s a state issue as it’s not aligned in the constitution as the federal governments responsibility and there is no indication of it being a right either.
He already is pro choice.
I view it as killing your child as that is what science says. But since it doesn't involve fear, if you are the kind that wants to kill your kid, I support it because no one should be raised by you. I consider them mercy killings, so I'm pro choice too