Wow some of these critics are stupid.
Posted on 01/26/2016 4:35:43 PM PST by presidio9
In 1999, Donald Trump claimed to be "pro-choice in every respect," to the point he would have opposed a ban on late-term and partial-birth abortions. His position at that time reflected the extreme edges of abortion ideology. A mere 14 percent of Americans believe third-trimester abortions should be legal.
But Trump has since switched sides, a move that makes sense in today's political climate. Since the 1990s, abortion has become one of the starkest and most consistent lines of demarcation between Democrats and Republicans. It is virtually inconceivable that a Democrat opposing abortion or a Republican supporting legal abortion could win the respective party's presidential nomination.
In a debate last year, Trump claimed he had "evolved" on the issue of the abortion. "I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life," the GOP candidate said.
But the way Trump described his "evolution" from the pro-choice to pro-life position raises some interesting questions.
He said: "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."
Now, I'm one who cheers whenever someone publicly switches from supporting abortion rights to supporting human rights for all - including the unborn. I am glad to see people like Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, or Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, become pro-life activists.
But I find it difficult to cheer Trump's conversion, because the reason he gives for being pro-life doesn't correspond to the pro-life ethic.
Trump says he is pro-life because of a "superstar" child who could have been aborted.
Consider how he responded to a reporter who wondered if he would have become pro-life had the child been a "loser": "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."
To summarize Trump's view: "I'm pro-life because we shouldn't abort fetuses that may grow up to be outstanding people."
But opponents of abortion take a different position: "I'm pro-life because we shouldn't kill innocent human beings, no matter who they might grow up to be."
Trump’s reason for being pro-life depends on the potential outcome of the child in the womb, rather than the fact that there is a child in the womb. But the pro-life ethic is grounded in the inherent worth of all humanity. It is wrong to commit violence against innocent human beings. Full stop.
And that's where, ironically, Trump's position sounds similar to the pro-choice idea that the human fetus is "potential life" or that the value of the unborn depends on whether or not the child is "wanted."
Extending Trump's logic leads to more problems. If we adopt the position of abortion opponents merely because of what a child may grow up to be (a "superstar!"), then why should we care if 67 percent of Down syndrome children are aborted after a prenatal diagnosis? What would Trump say if he were told there's a better chance an "unwanted" child from an impoverished or minority neighborhood would grow up to be involved in crime?
These are not far-off questions in the abortion debate. Pro-life people are concerned with "gendercide" in Asia, where girls are aborted at much higher rates than boys. (The reason is often outcome-based. Families want boys to carry on the family name.)
Abortion opponents are also concerned with the social pressures that lead to higher abortion rates in minority communities, where, for example, in New York City, an African-American child is more likely to be aborted than born.
If the "right to life" is in any way dependent on what the probable outcome of a child will be, then we are right back where we were a century ago, when the forerunners of today's abortion industry were advocating eugenics to "weed out" less desirable groups.
Not surprisingly, when discussing the government's unwillingness to fund abortions through taxes, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg claimed that at the time Roe v. Wade was decided "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
But back to Trump. Pro-life activists are always glad to welcome new people to their ranks — whether they are celebrities like Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton, pundits like Bob Beckel or politicians like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
So it may seem like nitpicking to ask additional questions of Trump. But we have to ask these questions anyway, because they take us to the heart of the issue and help us discern the depth of their convictions.
For Trump, the crucial issue concerns what the unborn child could become. For most pro-life people, however, the crucial issue concerns what the unborn child already is.
Tag line.
? Do you have any proof he’s going to build a wall? The man who says things, and says the opposite all the time? The man who never follows through on any of the stuff he spouts?
Both of Trump's main challengers have also promised a wall.
Both are committed to ending the apocalypse of innocents that is has claimed 58,000,000 lives in this country since Roe V Wade.
On a Howard Stern show back in 2003 Trump indicated he wanted to abort his second daughter, Tiffany, after his mistress at the time, Marla Maples, got pregnant.
He told Howard Stern he said to Maples they had to “do something about it”. Luckily for Tiffany, Maples didn’t want to. They got married after the baby was born.
Bingo!
Are you still ready for an Emperor?
Obola won the Nobel Peace Prize by TALKING about Peace. Now, Trump will win the Presidency by TALKING about the Wall.
Talk is cheap.
“Since the 1990s, abortion has become one of the starkest and most consistent lines of demarcation between Democrats and Republicans. “
Says who? Republicans controlled the White House as well as the Congress from 2002 until 2006. What the hell did they accomplish in the fight against abortion? Lip service seems to be about all these people are capable of.
The man who never follows through on any of the stuff he spouts?
********************
Give him a break ,, he’s not president yet... When he is he has the 1986 law on the books where the wall is required to be built... and he has plenty of fat in the executive branch to fund it by re-allocating $$$$ even if it isn’t in the budget.
As to his “conversion” ,,, I am like the writer unconvinced ... but I’ll take a chance on him rather than allow Hillary to win. All he needs to do is sign a personhood bill or appoint constitutionalist judges.
You don’t care that nascent human beings are being slaughtered and their lifeless corpses sold by an evil disgusting organization that is using our tax dollars to do these horrifying things? That’s a disgusting viewpoint to have.
Thanks for posting.
Right now it sure looks like Trump is going to get the nomination. We will know in a couple months. I'm staying with Cruz. I know who he was, I know who he is, and I know who he will be.
Tag line.
You don't care if Hillary isn't defeated? That's a disgusting viewpoint to have.
Hey, who knows maybe Obama will do that as well. There is about as much chance.
“Do you have any proof he’s going to build a wall?”
They ALL lie, and they ALL have checkered pasts on immigration (at best). I’ll go with the one that’s saying what I want to hear, and saying it the strongest.
You're right that his reasons are weak. It should be that life begins at conception and we don't have the authority from our Creator to abort life because it's inconvenient. He is getting closer though as this editorial by Trump on the culture of life reveals.
But there is little he can do as President to stop abortions. He has already promised to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood until they stop abortions. He has already said that abortions shouldn't be funded by tax payer money in violation of the consciences of the tax payers. So I think Trump will do what he can as President to limit abortions and federal funding of abortions.
We need Congress to step up. Until we elect an anti-abortion congress, it's not really a major issue in electing a President.
We need Trump for reasons other than abortion, like the economy and trade negotiations. Cruz is better on abortions, but Cruz is almost a single issue candidate. Trump will probably do everything Cruz can do on abortions and possibly more, since Trump thinks outside the box more than most.
“Both of Trump’s main challengers have also promised a wall.”
Only AFTER seeing Trump succeed by promising, and it’s OBVIOUS that they don’t have their hearts in it.
Not at all, particularly after the GOPe get off the phone with them threatening to withhold their money.
And, yes, I'm aware of the issue of judicial nominees. Don't forget that Supreme Court nominees must go through a Senate confirmation process.
The bottom line is, abortion, at least in some form, is very likely to remain legal in the US, although there may be a trend of more restrictions being placed on it in the future.
At the core of the issue, however, a mother's right to life will always be able to trump that of the fetus.
Thus, even if abortion were to remain legal only in cases where the mother's life is deemed to be at risk, the arbitrary nature of that determination will effectively amount to a loophole that one could drive a truck through.
What I'm saying is that Trump's stance on abortion, and indeed Cruz's, will not make much difference in the long run.
I think we can agree that there will always be exceptions which will allow the procedure to take place, and those exceptions will be sufficient for the procedure, which does take a life, to remain legal for any woman who opts for it.
I think that the real progress to be made against the appalling number of abortions in this country lies in educating women against choosing that option, combined with a stigmatization of abortion by society in general.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that there's not a stigma attached to it.
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.