Posted on 01/18/2016 2:16:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack the former neurosurgeon for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."
The attack was more than a bit hypocritical because Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."
"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect." Trump explained his views may be the result of his "New York background." Now that Ted Cruz has attacked Trump's "New York values," Trump's views on abortion will be getting a second look by many Republican voters.
During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some unknown point in the last 16 years. "Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances," Trump said. "I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."
When the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar," Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."
That Trump could go from supporting third-trimester abortion--something indistinguishable from infanticide, something that only 14 percent of Americans think should be legal--to becoming pro-life because of that one experience is a bit hard to believe. If it's true, the story still indicates at the very least that Trump is not capable of serious moral reasoning.
The more important question is not what Trump said in the past but what he would do in the future. Trump says he's pro-life except in the cases when a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is the result of rape or incest, although it remains unclear if he thinks abortion should be generally legal in the first three months of pregnancy (a position that is more accurately described as "pro-choice").
Trump has said he'd sign a ban on abortion during the last four months of pregnancy, when infants can feel pain and are capable of surviving long-term outside the womb. But after undercover videos were released showing Planned Parenthood involved in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts, Trump said he wasn't sure if the Planned Parenthood should lose all of its federal funding. He later shifted, saying: "I wouldn't do any funding as long as they are performing abortions."
Even if the mercurial Trump followed through on his promises to sign pro-life legislation, it wouldn't matter if he appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court. The Court is just one appointment away from a solid liberal majority that would likely find a right to taxpayer-funded and late-term abortion.
By the end of the next president's first term, four sitting justices will be over the age of 80. Originalist Antonin Scalia and "swing-vote" Anthony Kennedy will both be 84. Liberal activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be, respectively, 87 and 82. There's really no telling how far a lockstep-liberal majority would go on other issues like guns, immigration, national security, and the death penalty. If Trump appoints a liberal activist--intentionally or not--the rest of his domestic agenda doesn't matter much.
The more likely result of a Trump nomination, of course, would be a Clinton presidency and the certain appointment of liberal justices. But in the event that Trump actually wins, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he appoint? When a voter asked Trump in December if he'd defund Planned Parenthood and try to repeal Roe v. Wade, Trump wouldn't answer the question. "The answer is yes, defund," he replied. "The other, you're gonna need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we're gonna be looking at that very, very carefully, but you need a lot of Supreme Court judges. But defund yes, we're going to be doing a lot of that."
In 2015, Trump said he thought his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal appeals court judge who struck down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban, would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice. "We will have to rule that out now, at least," he added.
The bigger problem is that Trump's general hostility toward limited government conservatism indicates that he would not want to appoint a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. Trump still supports allowing the government to seize private property for commercial use, and a Supreme Court justice who shares this view will almost certainly be a liberal activist on issues across the board. Even if Trump wanted to appoint a constitutionalist, there's no reason to think he'd know how to pick one in the first place.
On Saturday, Trump floated former senator Scott Brown, who supports a right to abortion, as a possible vice presidential running mate. "I tend to agree with @AnnCoulter on priorities here. If Trump immigration plan implemented, doesn't matter," tweeted Breitbart.com Washington editor Matthew Boyle. "I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper," Coulter wrote in August.
Anti-immigration obsessives may not care about Trump's views on infanticide and judges. But a strong majority of primary voters in a conservative, pro-life party surely will.
What you all should do, is become sainted. Beyond all human repair or neediness.
Then, we could have a conversation.
How’s that sound?
He recently said (from above):
When the Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a “total superstar,” Trump replied: “Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he’s such an outstanding person.”
So life and death is based on his judgement of a person being a “superstar” or “loser”. That is profoundly disturbing. So if more “losers” live in the future abortions are okay again?
What the hell kind of principles are those?
It depends on if they’re “losers” or “superstars”...
Hmmmm. It’s 5:15 am. Looks like you’re a little late this morning getting your usual anti-Trump trash out your PC door. Is it because you’re having more and more trouble these days finding articles that are fresh, well written and give the reader some real insight to Trump? Another Weekly Standard piece of garbage.
That Trump could go from supporting third-trimester abortion--something indistinguishable from infanticide, something that only 14 percent of Americans think should be legal--to becoming pro-life because of that one experience is a bit hard to believe. If it's true, the story still indicates at the very least that Trump is not capable of serious moral reasoning.---
When I learned that Obama was the only legislator to oppose the partial birth abortion ban, I knew all I needed to know.
Yesterday I wrote a lengthy post, saying that Trump doesn't have a firm grasp on good and evil...
You either get this or you don't. But this is a very, very bad sign.
Cruz has a PROVEN record!
None of them are perfect, including Reagan, and Reagan, a humble man would be the first to say he was not perfect.
Cruz is way closer to Reagan than Trump. NO CONTEST.
-— Amen, wondered if anyone else would catch the eugenics philosophy espoused. -—
You’d have to be blind to miss it.
But at least Trump will make the trains run on time.
God help us.
I think it’s a reasonable question. We don’t know what Trump will do if he is elected. We don’t know what any candidate will do if he/she is elected. We know only what they say they will do.
The gap between campaign rhetoric and actual performance in office is often very wide.
The only issue for me is stopping immigration - ALL immigration.
Second fro me is supreme court justices’ appointments.
Nothing else matters.
I would like to know more what kind of justices Trump would appoint to the SC. Electing a republican is no guarantee of getting a conservative, strict constitutionalist on the court.
People don’t realize SC is the biggest issue.
Gun rights? 5-4.
Gay marriage 5-4.
Etc etc.
Trump trashed Scalia. How can a thinking conservative imagine in their wildest dream he would appoint a conservative??
"......The political distinctiveness of the Millennials is greatly exaggerated. In their incoherence, they are very much like the general run of American voters, who want more spending, lower taxes, and balanced budgets, who oppose endless war in the Middle East except when they don't, who think that the government should do more to help the poor except for all those bums on welfare, etc. Millennials may be much more enthusiastic about gay marriage than their elders, but on other key issues, such as the legality of abortion, they are largely indistinguishable from them. Like most other Americans, they tend to cite jobs and economic concerns as the issues most important to them, and, like most other Americans, they generally lack even the rudimentary grasp of economics sufficient for understanding the main arguments about those issues. The main difference between them and preceding generations is that the Millennials are young, they are many, and, ironically enough, they lack any sense of genuine introspection even as they remain utterly fascinated by the contents of their own navels.".....
... Ask Cruz if he supports abortion bans at the federal level.
Ask Cruz if he supports gay marriage bans at the federal level.
You miss the point. Cruz UNDERSTANDS THE CONSTITUTION.
IF YOU DON’T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE SCOTUS IS IN SHAPING OUR FUTURE YOU KNOW NOTHING. NOTHING.
AND YOU TRUST YOUR HERO WHO TRASHED SCALIA.
DISGUSTING LACK OF LOOKING AT FACTS.
DO YOU LIKE GUNRIGHTS? A COUPLE OF NONCONSERVATIVE APPOINTMENTS AND ALL OUR GUN RIGHTS ARE GONE WITH THE WIND.
"The 300-odd young libertarians packed into Catholic University's student center were the elect of the elect. They'd scored invites to the Young Americans for Liberty annual conference because -- according to an email pitch to sponsors -- they could be "the future congressmen, entrepreneurs, policy makers, and activists that will restore our republic."
And they were not fans of Planned Parenthood. In a short evening of conversations, no young libertarian activist said he disagreed with Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) effort to bar any federal funds for the family planning group. At a bar near the conference, one table echoed with arguments about the ethics of abortion, and the politics of Paul's move.
"Planned Parenthood should not be funded by taxpayer dollars," said Hannah Malstrom, 26, a student at the University of Central Arkansas. "We were all once 20 weeks old. If I was ripped limb from limb, and my organs were sold on the black market, I would not be a happy camper. Another big stance in libertarianism is opposition to the death penalty. It's not right to play God when someone has done something wrong -- so why is it right to play God with someone who has done nothing wrong?"......
What proof is there that a real estate developer whose business depends on illegal immigration would clear them out not increase them?
However, Reagan was an Natural born American. Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian.
Lol. No matter how many times the GOPe fools you, you keep coming back for more.
bttt!
-— Trump trashed Scalia. How can a thinking conservative imagine in their wildest dream he would appoint a conservative?? -—
Trump is an across-the-board failure. Even his immigration policy expedites the return of deportees.
Worse still is his limited ability to reason morally. When asked recently whether his pro-life conversion would have been different if the “super” child that was spared from abortion, was instead, a “loser,” he replied, “no.”
The uncritical support for him is mystifying.
I am a firm believer that as one ages they become more wiser and conservative on life issues. It’s not always the case, but more so than not. I think at 70 years this explains Trump’s evolution.
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.