• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

Argent

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
8,049
Reaction score
11,816
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here we go...fetuses have personhood. Bolding is mine.

"A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer."

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

Donald Trump slipped the anti-abortion language into an otherwise unrelated order.
newrepublic.com
 
The TNR article continues:

...But the concept of fetal personhood is not only weaponized to limit abortion access—it’s also been leveraged at the state level to restrict in vitro fertilization access for intended parents in places such as Alabama, and even used to limit access to forms of birth control. In May, the Texas GOP attempted to transform fetal personhood into law, claiming that “abortion is not healthcare, it is homicide,” and called on lawmakers to extend “equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization.”...

``````````````````````````````````

Trump's Executive Order is an attack on girls, women, families, and "born children".
 

Who's writing this stuff for him? He came out pretty strong during the campaign that he'd guarantee access to IVF. This would be a step backwards on that. Of course if his lips are moving, he's lying, so who knows?
 
Lursa said:
Who's writing this stuff for him? He came out pretty strong during the campaign that he'd guarantee access to IVF. This would be a step backwards on that. Of course if his lips are moving, he's lying, so who knows?
Click to expand...
What trump says and what trump does are two very different creatures. Wait until there are no lower prices for food and no lower prices for gasoline in the next two years and listen to the trumpsters still support him even though it's costing them more and more every day.
 
Lursa said:
Who's writing this stuff for him? He came out pretty strong during the campaign that he'd guarantee access to IVF. This would be a step backwards on that. Of course if his lips are moving, he's lying, so who knows?
Click to expand...
Who is pumping up the hysteria over "dangerous" rights for the unborn and "leveraging" them into bans on IVF and birth control? The fanatical cult worshipping abortion is like the Democrat slave holders of old, anything that even remotely threatens the declaration of subhuman status for slave or unborn triggers a wave of demagoguery.
 
Check out some of the bills in the House that have been introduced about federal abortion restrictions
 

What part that I wrote isnt accurate? Some of it is speculation but his words on IVF are public. The language of the bill is open to interpretation.

Since Dobbs was overturned when most of us believed it was "settled law," why should we sit and just wait?
 
Lursa said:
What part that I wrote isnt accurate? Some of it is speculation but his words on IVF are public. The language of the bill is open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
What part of the demagoguery proclaiming the unborn have a right to be protected from casual slaughter is "dangerous" isn't hyperbole? None. It's the same for hysterical claim of "leveraging" protections for the unborn into bans on IVF and birth control. Say anything to keep abortion mills operating at full tilt.

Yes, Trump's words on IVF are public. Try informing yourself before speculating.

Trump says he wants to make IVF treatments paid for by government or insurance companies if elected

In an interview with NBC News, the former president defended himself over abortion rights and said either the government or insurance companies would pay for IVF if he's elected.
www.nbcnews.com
Lursa said:
Since Dobbs was overturned when most of us believed it was "settled law," why should we sit and just wait?
Click to expand...
Dobbs was not overturned. Neither did it overturn Roe fully. It just returned abortion regulation back to the states. Of course abortion extremists can't resist an opportunity to stoke hysteria and division based on speculation.
 

I meant RvW was overturned, a typo.

Aside from that, do you have something that disputes what I wrote? And I wrote that mango MAGAT magnet was clear on IVF...why are you repeating it?

Lursa said:
Who's writing this stuff for him? He came out pretty strong during the campaign that he'd guarantee access to IVF. This would be a step backwards on that. Of course if his lips are moving, he's lying, so who knows?
Click to expand...

You make me laugh, you use "casual slaughter" and then try to school me on hyperbole?
 

The Constitution mentions 'personhood' as born people. Citizens are born people...

Fourteenth Amendment - Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.
constitution.congress.gov

Fetus's are neither. The only issue comes if SCOTUS makes EO's Constitutional Amendments, or something outside their power.
 
Lursa said:
I meant RvW was overturned, a typo.

Aside from that, do you have something that disputes what I wrote? And I wrote that mango MAGAT magnet was clear on IVF...why are you repeating it?
Click to expand...
You obsess on what you claim is a.typo as an excuse to avoid attempting a rebuttal. The linked article documents Trump's support for IVF even suggesting the government should pay for it in the absence of insurance coverage. Of course you didn't read it, just reverted to your standard false demand.
Lursa said:
You make me laugh, you use "casual slaughter" and then try to school me on hyperbole?
Click to expand...
That's amusing. Pro abortion extremists demand abortions at any time during pregnancy be readily available, no reason or rationale necessary as if it's a casual decision.
 
AZRWinger said:
That's amusing. Pro abortion extremists demand abortions at any time during pregnancy be readily available, no reason or rationale necessary as if it's a casual decision.
Click to expand...
No reason to restrict abortion in the least either. Whether it's a casual decision or not is for the pregnant woman to decide for herself. It's certainly no one else's decision or business.
 
AZRWinger said:
You obsess on what you claim is a.typo as an excuse to avoid attempting a rebuttal. The linked article documents Trump's support for IVF even suggesting the government should pay for it in the absence of insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

I fixed it. What are you still disputing? What am I avoiding? Be clear.

And why are you repeating the green text again? I was clear in my first post and then reposted it for you again

Lursa said:
Who's writing this stuff for him? He came out pretty strong during the campaign that he'd guarantee access to IVF. This would be a step backwards on that. Of course if his lips are moving, he's lying, so who knows?
Click to expand...

So now doesnt your snark look foolish?

AZRWinger said:
Of course you didn't read it, just reverted to your standard false demand.\
Click to expand...

AZRWinger said:
That's amusing. Pro abortion extremists demand abortions at any time during pregnancy be readily available, no reason or rationale necessary as if it's a casual decision.
Click to expand...

More hyperbole doesnt counter my claim that your hyperbole reeks of desperation. But thanks for showing I'm correct.
 
This is creepy.
 
For all that I am pro-choice, pro transgender, and anti-Trump (although not anti-GOP), that is not what it says, unless one is looking for something to be upset about outside of what it actually says. While itt is problematic towards the issue of transgender people, it is not actually stating that an individual is a person at conception. While we can, and do, debate on the point when personhood is bestowed upon an individual, it is objective fact that they are an individual (not necessarily a person) from conception. The wording is that an individual who is a person now, had a criteria that manifested at conception. It doesn't actually address when personhood is bestowed. Mind you that my statement here does not speak to if the wording is factual or accurate. Nor does it preclude any efforts on the anti-choice faction from trying to spin it that way. But the argument of what it actually says vs what opponents will try to spin it as are two different positions.
 

I could be wrong, but I feel like we have usually heard the sex assigned at birth.

One of Trump's propaganda tricks is repetition. Perhaps they decided to change it to who they are at the time of conception here in an effort to get it in the everyday lexicon.

I just noticed they are red flagging the term "assigned at birth."

 
1000 to 1 Trump will ban abortion nationwide before it's over.
 
rhinefire said:
1000 to 1 Trump will ban abortion nationwide before it's over.
Click to expand...
Since the Trump appointment heavy SCOTUS has already ruled it's a state decision, that's out of his hands. But yeah, he try anyway.
 
maquiscat said:
Since the Trump appointment heavy SCOTUS has already ruled it's a state decision, that's out of his hands. But yeah, he try anyway.
Click to expand...
Classic Orange Man Bad demagoguery. Put on your Handmaids Tale costume to tilt against another windmill.

After the Dobbs decision was released despite the Left's violent protests, Senate Democrats introduced a bill to codify Rowe into Federal law. It failed. But let's ignore the fact Congress rejected Rowe and instead claim Trump will ban abortion.
 
maquiscat said:
Since the Trump appointment heavy SCOTUS has already ruled it's a state decision, that's out of his hands. But yeah, he try anyway.
Click to expand...
Agreed in that he ignores the rules of anything.
 
It's Roe and not Rowe, Superstar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…