the post 69 accomplished its purpose: refuting your false assertion that Trump’s pro-life position is brand new.
Your post 69 doesn’t accomplish the purpose which it needs to accomplish. My assertion is that trump has a long history of being pro-baby-murder, his “conversion” is relatively-new (2011), and as recently as JANUARY 2015, he appears to waver on his pro-life stance.
Thus, in light of his long and inglorious history being in favor of baby murder (apparently until he was 65 years old), and the most recent evidence of being other than pro-life, it is most appropriate to consider him as unreliable on this issue, and to require of him something more recent and thoroughly categorical.
Without that, he can’t be trusted to be anywhere near an actual pro-lifer upon which to be relied.
Oh, and by the way, the 2000 date is meaningless. He claims he changed his mind on the form of infanticide called “partial birth abortion,” but there is no evidence on the record that he did so, and there is no logical reason to take the word of someone with such an awful previous record on life.
Gov. Romney tried almost the identical tactic. I held my nose and credited his fairy tale. I won’t be fooled again.