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.
you have any proof he’s going to build a wall?
***
Do you have any proof he’s NOT?
I’m pretty sure that he’s the only candidate serious about it. All the others who claim to be for a wall had to be forced into it or are amazingly timid about their support and will easily be rolled.
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.
***
I care. It’s because I care that I support Trump.
You don’t seem to understand that unless we get this illegal problem under control, abortions are only going to get worse as the uniparty subverts more and more of our electoral process with those fraudulent votes. If that happens, the slaughter that you’re railing against is only going to get worse.
Trump is the only candidate who actually acts like he’s taking this problem seriously.
It’s as simple as that.
Illegal immigration is indeed a critical issue, but with four Supreme Court justices heading past 80 years of age, the last person I want for president (after Clinton and Sanders) is Mr. Trump. NO, NO, and triple NO, his sister — who wrote an opinion supporting the infanticide of partial birth abortion — would not make a phenomenal Supreme Court justice.
Actually the LAST PERSON that I want putting justices on the court is Hillary/Biden. If I feared Trump more, I’d be supporting Bush/Rubio as they have a better, but still very much uphill, chance of winning in November, relative to Cruz, who still hasn’t shown any ability to receive support outside his Tea Party base.
Given that, I’m pretty much forced to roll the dice with Trump.
When it comes to Supreme Court appointments, I obviously don’t want anything to do with Clinton or Sanders, but as a pro-life person, I don’t trust Trump further than I can see him. I would suggest you hold your fire on rolling the dice with Trump. I see Clinton as a few feet away from dire straits. The FBI will present an insurmountable case for indictment, Lynch won’t indict and then hell will break loose. And if it doesn’t, I see that old socialist Bernie is edging HRC in NH and Iowa. The GOP could get a 40-state victory with Bernie. Then who do I want and trust for SC nominations — Cruz or Trump. Obviously Cruz. He can easily beat up old Bernie — and I think he would wipe the floor with HRC in a debate.
We shall see, but I expect the Dems to, very soon, dump Hillary. Obama will see to it, via the Justice Department, if she won’t comply.
So what’s next? I tend to think Biden or someone new. They WILL NOT let Sanders stay in. He was only intended to be window dressing, and they have enough Superdelagates to almost take him out that way.
All I know is that Trump will ACTUALLY TRY TO WIN against whoever runs. Cruz may try, the others are simply incapable.
But as I say, we shall see.
Oh, come on. You really don’t fear Joltin Joe, do you? The media won’t be able to ignore his gaffes, stupid mistakes as fast as he makes them. Joe has the potential to be an idiot. I assure that Cruz as much/more fire in his belly than Donald.
I just wonder what gives all of the Trump supporters that are on the website the assurance he’ll do what he says, given his lifetime Dem affiliations and zero political track record. While I have supported Cruz, I have also gotten so tired of Trump’s mouth — calling people liars, saying they look like jerks etc. Obama was enough for eight years. I don’t need another immature, non-presidential character — and besides I don’t want to have America’s first president who was also a strip club owner.
My evidence is first hand. As I said, I have played both courses. I also caddied at one of them as a teenager, including in Mr. Trump's group on a few occasions. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I can assure you that this goes one at every top private golf club in the NYC area. Twenty years ago, there were two main types of caddies: First are the so-called "pro-jocks," who are black and white migrants. They split time between the Northeast and Florida. And there are also white teenagers making extra money for college.
Over the last twenty years, the black and white caddies started being replaced by immigrants who worked harder, and appreciated the fact that they had a place to earn money without documentation. Aside from the small percentage of truly excellent pro jocks, the golfers tended to prefer the Hispanics. They worked harder, and were less likely to talk to the golfers. As of the last few years, the majority of caddies at any of these golf courses are illegals.
Donald Trump plays his own courses constantly. I assure you, he is well-aware of everything I just said.
Go ahead break the story, that is seemingly unknown- anywhere, other than your post.
I suspect that this hasn't been reported yet because very few reporters get invited to play at exclusive country clubs. However, some of these clubs do have their share of liberal members. If Mr. Trump is nominated, I do expect a reporter to eventually make the connection.
In the meantime, while I have not picked a candidate, I am not opposed to Mr. Trump. So it won't be me who does so. You made a statement that Mr. Trump does participate in illegal immigration. I gave you an example of how he does.
The takeaway is this: All candidates lie -including Mr. Trump.
Liars abound. Just a fact of life.
The hundreds of illegals are not represented, by your post.
I know about hiring folks, in the construction part of building. I have never hired an illegal person.
Yet, many folks do, and consider themselves good americans.
Your example of golf course employment is a standard met by a good two hundred years of supposedly rich punks imposing their egos on God. Startin’ back in Scotland. Phuck ‘em.
Let’s get out, the shiny new old shoes, and walk in those for a true mile. It’s about time.
Multiple private golf clubs at 50 to 100 caddies per club. Do the math.
As I said, I am not opposed to Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination, but as far as I'm concerned all of the Republican contenders are less than satisfactory. I can live with any of the top three, as long is Hillary Clinton is not our next president.
However, what amazes me about the Trump candidacy is the way that his supporters will twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend or deny any black mark against him. This is a fact: Donald Trump does knowingly employ or allow to work on his properties hundreds of undocumented workers. This is not worth debating, it is a fact.
I bring this up not because I think it will ultimately damage Mr. Trump's candidacy, but because I feel like it is going to come out eventually anyway. Better that it come out now than that it come out in the middle of the summer when his nomination is a foregone conclusion. The liberal media has only been taking him seriously as a candidate for a few weeks now. The golf season in NY ended a few months ago, and it won't start again until roughly April.
Trump is absolutely clueless about the scourge of abortion, and the moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against it.
If he’s pro-life, I’m a multi-billionaire.
Ping
This discussion came up today, again, so I did a search (duckduckgo) and your thread came up. Extremely surprised that it only has 52 posts. I guess many are still willing to sacrifice the pre-born instead of the dollar.
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.