Posted on 04/19/2011 12:59:25 PM PDT by julieee
Donald Trump Falters on Question Over Privacy, Abortion
Washington, DC -- Businessman Donald Trump faltered when responding to a series of questions on abortion that saw NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie attempt to challenge him on the so-called right to privacy the Supreme Court invented to create a "right" to abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/19/donald-trump-falters-on-question-over-privacy-abortion/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
The more I read this, the more I think that Trump was simply outing the questioner on using the euphemism of “privacy” when he meant “baby killing”.
I won’t ‘fire’ Donald Trump over this one interview (he has his attributes) but as I’ve stated here (and elsewhere) I don’t trust him in the sense that I believe Trump’s conservative stance is very shallow, at best and possibly deceptive, at worst. I’ll stick with a proven conservative, Sarah Palin.
Trump has had a lot of bad hair days. Just like Romney. Two bad hair guys who are more liberal than they are conservative and both run-of-the-mill liars and political whores. Either will say anything to get ahead. Just working the system the only way they know how. Charlatans.
Jim also expressed the following just before a well-deserved zot of a Trump supporter and Mark Levin basher:
Mark Levin is a friend of mine. He’s got more conservatism in his little finger than you or Trump have in your entire lib troll bodies and you’ve been bashing him for days. Get off the forum, troll!
Jim Robinson has a lot of experience in these matters and he knows when a candidate is a liberal in spite of lip service to Conservative principles.
I believe Mr. Trump is a business man period. What will further his business interests, he’s for...
I agree. I love how the left uses those euphemisms such as "a woman's right to choose" or "a woman's right to privacy" when they really mean "a woman's right to kill an unwanted baby".
I agree that women should have a right to privacy and a right to choose certain things; as long as it does not involve taking an innocent life.
Here is a response I posted elsewhere, and a Trump response during that interview.
Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"
Just how is that a stumble? Trump disagreed with the SCOTUS bogus and concocted justification for legalizing abortion. So what if he didn't immediately recognize that the "right to privacy" was the bogus excuse used by the court. He disagreed with it!
The constitution does imply and guarantee a right to privacy in several places (no unreasonable searches and seizures, religious freedom and others), but how many would stretch that to mean a right to kill a developing baby? Trump didn't.
I think Trump was using the same tactic that I do when some lefty says “right to choose”.
I say “choose WHAT exactly?”
What to eat for lunch? What shoes to wear? What car to drive?
Oh, you mean to “choose to kill an inconvenient baby”, OK, now that we’ve defined what you mean, we can discuss the issue.
In the meantime, I'm sure Obama has hired a few "hit men" to go after Trump...Like a dozen IRS guys to begin with....
This discussion illustrates a serious problem that right to life conservatives will have to deal with in election politics. Inconvenient facts: less abortion will probably mean more low income, welfare babies; Republicans have been voting against WIC (which helps improved nutrition and presumably health of mothers and infants and less need for subsidized health care); conservatives also seem to be against birth control and contraception which should also result in increased numbers of low income, welfare babies and seekers of abortion; in general there seems to be a lack of Republican/conservative support for post birth babies.
This leads many to consider the whole anti abortion issue to be a covert effort to increase the numbers of the poor and reduce the independence of women. Sounds something like Sharia law. How to reconcile these logical contradictions will be a major task if Republicans/conservatives are to win more than their base.
Cut from the same cloth as Mitt Romney.
Yuk.
Yep, they'll be going after any potential candidate they perceive as a possible threat to their precious Barry. There's another thread around about a big damaging, tell all book from a former Palin aide that's soon to be released.
Stalk much?
Lots of BS based on the false premise that we can’t possibly return morality to the culture as a factor.
The NUMBER ONE cause of poverty is sex before marriage.
If it is an unavoidable consequence for a behavior choice, there will be less of that behavior choice made.
Leftists assume an immoral culture, because they WANT an immoral culture. They also assume that people do not react to incentives.
Your post does both as well.
Cause of poverty, sex before marriage.
Alas you are right, but there are studies (I know some will argue they are biased) which indicate that abstinence only education results in more unplanned pregnancies than forms of education that include contraception. A recent tragic case caught my attention. A 25 year old mother drove her car with 4 children into the Hudson River. Only her 10 year old son survived. The other three including the 11 months old baby died. The father of the 3 was not married to the mother and did not live with her.
Some questions here: what help was a 14 year old pregnant girl given to help her keep the baby, but avoid repeating the mistake? What became of the first father? What help was a mother with 4 children including an 11 month old baby being given since the father was not living with her? I think the other children wer 2 and 5. Would this situation have been avoided if she had had an abortion or birth control education? How many conservative white churches are reaching out to help these kinds of mothers? I know that at age 32, with one colicy baby, an unsupportive husband, and averaging about 4 hours of sleep a night for weeks at a time, I felt very unable to continue at times. I don’t know what would have happened if I had not avoided getting pregnant again for several years.
He basically botched the same question Couric stumped Palin with.
I like this article but the headline is stupid. He says he’s prolife and that’s good enough for me. Privacy- yeah it’s called the 4th and 5th amendments.
So let me get this straight: Liberal feminism ditched babies in the womb because they would prevent women from engaging in consequence-free, random sex like men. Given that over half of the children thus killed are women, liberal feminism is now saying that the path to independence for women is to kill millions of little girls. So if we’re talking logical contradictions here, don’t you think the liberal feminists have a lock on that market? As opposed, say to those pesky conservatives who want to discourage our culture from getting used to murdering the inconvenient? And what does Sharia say about dismemberment?
Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. That’s why he fumbled so badly. He hasn’t worked up a script yet. It’s a totally new position for him, plucked out of the ari for political gain. He’s never seen the debate before, probably because he has no friends that he’s discussed it with to any depth. He’s fakin’ it. This is a very scary man to have in charge of picking the next few SC justices.
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.