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.
I agree. I don’t trust any Republican on immigration. But I trust Trump the least because: 1. He has a long track record on the other side. 2. He says things all the time and then says something else. His promise is worth nothing. 3. If you look at the stuf he still says, it’s riddled with amnesty talk. 4. He has a vested financial interest in illegal immigration.
“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.”
Considering that there is NO WAY IN HELL that Cruz will be able to reach beyond the base and therefore cannot win in November, I guess we’re stuck or Hillary...so who really has the “disgusting viewpoint”, one that enables Hillary (or Biden) to take power, or one that rolls the dice with Trump?
What is Mr. Trump’s vested interest in illegal immigration?
Please type clearly and succinctly, in your response.
At some point I expect the msm to get off its ass and report on this, but technically Donald Trump employs illegal immigrant right now.
He owns seven golf courses, at least four of which are private and employ caddies. The tradition at many clubs is for caddies to operate as private contractors, so that the club can avoid paying benefits. But caddies are fired by a club employee (the starter or the caddymaster) for not showing up or poor performance. They participate in the club's annual employee party, and are eligible for the club's caddie scholarship. They are covered by club insurance for accidents that occur on club property.
In the last ten years, this profession has become overwhelmed by illegal immigrants as one of the most lucrative skilled professions. Donald Trump is well aware that these people are working for him, and he couldn't care less.
We see differently. As I see it, if the continued supply of Illegals was so important to Trump, he could have just as easily have sat back and let the Republicans give him Amnesty and everything else, as NO REPUBLICAN (until Trump) was about to go against the GOPe and the Donors, not this year, the threats were in place and they were clear, and NO ONE was even talking the issue until Trump...and no one was about to.
Bottom line - the guy is 70, he can move to Australia tomorrow, buy have the continent - I just don’t see a motive for him flat-out lying on the issue, but then anything is possible...particularly being lied to by every other Republican.
Donald Trump cold make the problem of illegal immigrants working at his golf clubs go away at any time if he actually wanted to.
Sure, you bet, bud.
Just like you describe.
Just like that.
I’ve had similar opinions for a while but this author puts it better than I could. It allows Trump to claim he is pro life based on some side benefits of the child which are dependent on another humans opinion. It allows him to sidestep pesky questions about when life begins and whether life is sacred.
A good caddie at these clubs makes about $100 per round -this sounds better than it really is because you often have to wait a couple of hours in the caddy yard before getting out, and when the weather is bad you might go to work and not get paid at all.
Remember also that Teddy Roosevelt saw through Margaret Sanger’s evil and wrote to her several times about population control.
I have asked this question continuously: Republican control of White House and Congress + conservative majority on the Supreme Court = Roe v. Wade still the law of the land. What the &*@% is up with that?
So what?
I’ve been bid-out, by high end union contractors, in state work, within process.
Before submits, and after.
Your idea of a worker is sublime, by comparative reality.
This is only the first example that comes to mind, but I do expect this to come up at some point in the campaign.
1999:
RUSSERT: Partial-birth abortion — the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?
TRUMP: Well, look. I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it, I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I hear people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice. And again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in different parts of the country, and I was raised in New York, grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion.
RUSSERT: But you would not ban it.
TRUMP: No.
RUSSERT: Or ban partial-birth abortion.
TRUMP: No, I would — I would — I am pro-choice in every respect, as far as it goes. I just hate it.
It that a fact?
Please present your facts- that “hundreds of illegal immigrants are working on Donald Trump’s properties with his full knowledge and consent.”
Go ahead break the story, that is seemingly unknown- anywhere, other than your post.
Thanks.
NY values.
Either to lie or to turn 180 degrees.
Trump isn’t a philosopher or much of a thinker. He doesn’t know who’s who among pro-lifers, and I’d bet he doesn’t know how abortion became legal, or that he has any plans to nullify the USSC’s decisions. I take hom at his word that he’s “pro-life,” but don’t expect any energy or creative thinking on the legal front.
Trump understands more than I have given him credit for.
It’s important not to forget that only a few weeks ago, Trump singularly upset the whole election apple cart!
Trump set the national agenda by opposing illegal immigration and bringing up other issues that the GOPe and their allies desperately wanted to avoid, and now they can’t.
The GOPe was not prepared for this, and as a consequence they don’t have a clue about what to do, hence their almost universal collapse into a pile of quivering jello, flip-flopping like a bag of Mexican jumping beans dumped on a hot griddle.
Trump has exposed those who pretend to be conservative but are really just fronts for big money establishment campaign donors who purchase their candidates with campaign “donations”.
Trump, by actually being a real man, has exposed the other candidates (Cruz excepting of course) and their allies for the weak little sniveling sellouts that they really are.
Trump’s vociferous truth-telling and fearless neutering of the kommie media have been the catalyst that triggered a massive revolt amongst conservative voters who are infuriated at the GOPe Congress doing absolutely ZERO to stop Obama’s agenda, and suddenly the GOP RINO leadership is in full blown panic mode and in full blown retreat, and the SMALL conservative House contingent smelt blood in the water, took heart, and charged in against a weakened, frightened and paralyzed GOPe leadership, and Boehner was taken out as a sacrificial lamb.
Trump is absolutely correct when he says that without Trump in the race, everything would be same-ol’, same-ol. The Joyful Tippy-Toes Turtle would be creeping closer to the finish line, Boehner would still be safely ensconced as Speaker, and there would be no mention of illegal immigration are any of the issues surrounding it by any politician in either party, other than possibly how critical it would be to pass immigration “reform”.
The media are loath to make the connection, but it’s obvious that the Boehner resignation was yet another falling domino, toppling due to the Trump Effect, because Trump’s unabashed truth-telling and fearless neutering of the kommie media triggered a revolt amongst the great unwashed GOP masses which emboldened a few conservative Congress critters to grow a few pairs.
And our nation wouldn’t even be having ANY of these conversations about illegal immigration and the myriad of other Obammunist issues destroying our country if it wasn’t for Trump. Instead, we’d simply be debating which RINO, GOPe squish would be least likely to be stomped by Hillary, and the GOPe would once again be exhorting the “base” about how critical it is for us to once again vote for the “lesser of two evils”, that is, vote for the GOPe side of the Uniparty coin.
And do note that ALL of the oligarchs and plutocrats are frightened to death of Donald Trump because the billionaires and millionaires can’t buy him like all of the other politicians they routinely purchase, because Trump doesn’t need nor want their money, and the kommie media is frightened to death of him because he isn’t afraid of them either, the bottom line being that Donald Trump can not be controlled by the rich and powerful or the corrupt media, so for anyone who is truly for campaign finance reform and wants to take money out of politics, voting for Trump is the only reasonable choice.
President Trump is really the last hope for this country: if he can’t undo any of the damage wrought by the Obammunists, the U.S.A. is done.
So least we forget, the above, and much more, are called “The Trump Effect”.
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.