Posted on 02/06/2019 9:30:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You could sum up in one word why many evangelicals voted for Donald Trump: abortion. It is therefore highly significant that it was Trump who made what might well be the strongest pro-life statement ever in a State of the Union address.
In 2003, President George W. Bush spoke out against partial-birth abortion, saying, “By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society -- a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.”
But Trump took things to another level by rebuking the celebration of New York’s new abortion law and Virginia Gov. Northam’s infanticide comments. The president minced no words.
He said, “There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.”
So, he first appealed to a mother’s instincts, then contrasted that with the heartlessness of lawmakers cheering a brutal abortion law, then described Gov. Northam’s position for exactly what it was: giving parents the right to “execute a baby after birth.”
This was a significant moment in the history of the pro-life movement.
He continued, “To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children -- born and unborn -- are made in the holy image of God.”
o repeat: This was a historic moment.
The president spoke of the personhood of the baby in the womb, thereby declaring that it is not simply a mass of cells. He spoke of the baby’s ability to feel pain, underscoring the cruelty of abortion. He spoke of the unborn as “innocent life,” reminding us of the injustice of abortion. And then he spoke of all children – inside and outside the womb – as made in God’s holy image.
Was Trump simply playing to his base? Was he trying to rally the troops for 2020? Was he sounding religious when he is no such thing?
Perhaps. Perhaps he’s simply saying what his constituents want to hear.
But even if that was the case, it would be still highly significant, given the power of the president’s bully pulpit.
But the truth is that Trump has backed his words with actions.
He has appointed pro-life justices to the courts.
He has signed pro-life bills.
And he has been consistent in his stance throughout his presidency.
In that respect, whether he really means what he says and does is secondary. What matters is that he is both saying it and doing it.
Not surprisingly, there was immediate liberal pushback against comments, with Lydia O’Connor at the Huffington Post proclaiming, “Trump Turns To Absurd Abortion Imagery In State Of The Union Speech."
“The president claimed that a new New York law would ‘allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.’”
O’Connor dismisses Trump’s claims, writing, “what the bill does is expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy to women carrying a fetus that cannot live outside the womb. Previously, the procedure was available only to women at that stage of pregnancy if their health was threatened.”
n support of this, she links to another article which notes that, “Under the new law . . . women can also get an abortion after 24 weeks if their health is threatened or the fetus isn’t viable.”
So, the very link provided by O’Connor contradicts her argument and vindicates Trump’s imagery: Right up to the moment of the birth, if an abortion was deemed necessary for the mother’s health, it could be performed.
Why not own up to it?
Why not celebrate it, as the New York lawmakers did?
And, in the spirit of “women’s rights,” why does it matter if the baby is aborted at 8 weeks or at 30 weeks? What is wrong with Trump’s imagery if the baby is still in the womb?
Right now, with the increasing militancy of the pro-abortionists, the pro-life movement is freshly mobilized.
And the roles of President Trump and Vice President Pence have been highly significant as well, with Pence addressing last month’s pro-life rally in person and Trump doing so remotely.
Pence also wrote a stinging response to Gov. Northam’s remarks, which he characterized as “morally reprehensible and evil.”
Against this backdrop, the importance of Trump’s State of the Union comments can hardly be exaggerated, underscoring why many evangelicals voted for him.
How different things would look today had Hillary Clinton been president.
The b!tches in heat showed where they stand on killing babies, in complete contradiction to their human nature as women and potential mothers.
It was beautiful when he said it
Straight Shot, no mealy mouthed crap
This can't be. HuffPO, the Beast and every other liberal bird cage liner says Trump lies with every breath.
Trump is a modern day hero among politicians because he tries to do what he promises (to the chagrin of the other lying politicians). he makes most of Congress look bad.
Historic? I guess. But nothing will come of it.
In 2003, President George W. Bush spoke out against partial-birth abortion, saying, “By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society — a culture that values every life.
**********
Ending abortion isn’t necessary because its “welcoming.” That’s a code word that the Democrats use to justify the admission of people who should not be welcomed. We end abortion, first, because it kills a human being, and also because it promotes people sleeping around with losers without regard for the consequences.
During President Trump’s pro-life comments, the Klan-robed whores of Satan sat on their thumbs.
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” (Proverbs 29:2 KJV).
" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free. Today, the individuals most denied their freedom are those innocent lives in the womb who, if wanted, are called "children," and if, for some reason are inconvenient at the time, are called "fetuses," as Aultman averred.
The SJW’s would scream bloody murder if you did to a newborn Kitten what they want done to a newborn Baby.
And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children -- born and unborn -- are made in the holy image of God.
I couldn't believe my ears, and then I was ashamed because I was surprised. Right there, right in front of the white-clad harpies who regard it as an untouchable issue, he laid down the gauntlet. That was not playing the base, it was in-your-face defiance. I don't see that many in the commentariat have picked up on it but the country did.
he makes most of Congress look bad.
...........................
BINGO! And that’s why so many in Congress hate him with a passion, and why they are working feverishly to have him impeached and/or imprisoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.