Thank you for your thoughtful comment but my transcript of Trumph’s latest speech (and all his prior policy staements) shows Trump saying, “no not health of the Mother I would leave it as life of the mother.” Do you have some additional info? I agree there is a chasm of difference.
I have taken this for granted. It is consistent with Trump's life before running for POTUS. I will take your objection seriously and stop repeating the claim unless and until I can verify it and, if I can verify it, I will get back to you. If you are right, thanks for the correction. If you are not right, i am sure you have objected in good faith.
xzins:
I thought I should ping you as well to the fact that there is question as to the factual basis of my previous post to you. I will also get back to you if I can verify its factuality and apologize i advance if I was in error.
Guthrie then asked if he would favor a revision to add an exception for the health of the mother." To Trump's credit, he said no to that and that he would have exceptions ONLY for life of the mother, rape and incest. Therefore JayGalt's objection was correct and my assertion otherwise was wrong.
I apologize to JayGalt and to xzins and anyone else reading my error which I will make a point of not repeating unless Trump changes his mind in the future. I care far too much about the abortion issue to allow myself to be as sloppy as I have proven to be. I don't trust Trump on abortion but that is o excuse for posting what have proven to be untrue allegations about him. I am now relying on Lifesite News' account of this.
As to the three exceptions that Trump would make, I offer the following:
1. Life of the Mother. I would agree IF AND ONLY IF this exception is strictly limited to imminent PHYSICAL threats to the life of the mother. If the mother is affected by a tubal pregnancy, the developing fetus is already guaranteed to die within currently available technology. If the fetus is not removed the mother will die as well. Tubal pregnancies justify medical intervention that is deemed by the world generally as "abortion" but is actually intervention to save the only life that can be saved, the life of the mother. There are also rare cases of uterine cancers where similar standards MAY apply depending on the facts of the individual case. This exception will generally be quite rare and objectively provable. The moral principle of "double effect" is at work here.
2. Incest. If the mother is underage and the victim of sexual imposition by a close male relative, or any other male, we call that statutory rape and no additional "exception" is necessary for incest. If sexual relations occur on a consensual basis between close relatives, it is hardly the fault of the developing baby. In either event, this exception is not morally justified or logically justified. If the concern is that incest makes birth defects more likely, that does not justify killing the child. Most pregnancies resulting from incest result in normal children even if the circumstances are risky. If the child is not normal, that does not grant those already born some "right" to kill the child.
3. Rape. Rape is unquestionably a terrible crime and, in most jurisdictions statutes provide heavy punishments for it. Our emotions become engaged on behalf of a woman or girl who has been so wronged but emotions are not a reliable basis for law. The baby that this exception would allow to be dismembered is guilty of nothing. Allowing this exception amounts to saying: Fred mugged Sue so let's kill Mary!
The language of Trump quoted by JayGalt appears to be precisely correct and I was wrong.