There's been much made over the last few days about Trump's big statement on abortion. I'm not sure why because it's his 3rd or 4th distinct position on abortion that he's taken publicly. He's gone from adamantly pro-choice, to adamantly pro-life, to there should be punishment, to it's the state's problem, to rape/incest/mother's life exceptions.
Now, I agree with his current position on a political level. For years the pro-life folks have been insistent that the goal was to get rid of Roe, many even acknowledged that post Roe would result in the issue going back to the states. Yet now that we've gotten rid of Roe, many of these people are upset that things worked exactly as intended. Different states, enacted different laws. We now have both extremes, and the middle represented by state laws. The problem is that the hard core pro-life folks realize that they really want a nationwide total abortion ban, which replaces one bad nationwide law with another. (Again, I'm only talking in political terms at this point.) Along comes Trump (who y'all were convinced was "pro-life") and takes the incredibly consistent (politically) position that since Roe is gone, then it's up to the states. That may mean that some states allow for abortion throughout pregnancy, while others don't, which is exactly what repealing Roe was intended to do.
Now, we've all heard that folks who are 100% committed to the (principled, and morally correct) position that even one abortion is too many and that all abortion is murder. (If this is you position, I applaud you and 100% support your choice to take this moral position) Yet, many of those people also wholeheartedly support Trump, they probably believed his "pro-life" claim. Now they're stuck with a conundrum, do they continue to support Trump even though he's failed to live up to his pro-life claims, or do they realize that they might have to support something other then they're current position. To me, it seems incredibly difficult to align the 100% pro-life stance, with support for Trump. (At least on this issue) Ultimately seems like a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The notion that it's impossible to (politically) support a candidate's position that theoretically gets rid of 99% of abortions because it doesn't get rid of 100% seems short sighted to me.
Further, it's almost like the pro-life folks went from being adamantly opposed to a national law that they didn't like to adamantly supporting a theoretical national law that they would theoretically like because they thought Trump was going to support a 100% national ban on abortion. Obviously, a 100% national ban on abortion achieved legislatively or by EO is a pipe dream at this point in time. Just as obviously, how could someone who's 100% pro-life support a ban after 15 weeks with exceptions for rape/incest/mother's life? So the 100% pro-life folks seem to be in a bit of a bind. Do they continue to buy into Trump 100% and hope that he was really telling the Truth when he said he was pro-life? Do they go along with the rest of us on the more conservative side and grudgingly vote for Trump despite his "failure" on their single issue? Do they take their ball and stay home?
This also relates to my Stupid Stuff post from a while back. This could be stupid for Trump in several ways (could, not will). First, it could cost his all of his pro life support which further weakens his base and costs himself the election. Second, it could make some of his base conclude that Trump has very few absolute principles and that it's likely that they're one issue could be next. Third, it could cause Trump to, once again, adjust his stance on abortion.
It could also slightly broaden his appeal to those who don't support abortion, but realize that short term compromise might be the way to long term victory on the issue.
In short, anyone who's ever said anything like "All abortion is always 100% murder for any reason and there should be a complete and total ban on abortion." and is all in on Trump, is going to have to choose between those two positions. It'll be interesting to see where the compromise is.
48 comments:
I read a really long post on this topic somewhere else, from the point of view of someone who would only be satisfied with a total ban on abortions. While I admire the sentiment, it boils down to the reality that a certain number of abortions will happen for an undefined period of time.
If you go the 100% or nothing route on a national scale, then you will be faced with the reality of replacing enough of our national legislators for a long enough time to get legislation, then with the uncertainty of a result when the legislation inevitably gets into the court system. Theoretically it would be possible to achieve the goal by passing legislation in all of the individual states as well, but it's the same problem on a different scale.
In any case, it's probable that you would see little reduction in total abortions until the law got passed, and went through the legal system, and hopefully gets upheld.
So, I'm forced to conclude that these 100%ers are willing to accept a basically unchanging number of abortions for an unknown period of time in the hope that they will eventually get to zero.
Shooting for that on a national scale seems like it's based more on hope than on anything. It also seems like you'd bear some responsibility for the abortions that happen between good and perfect.
" To me, it seems incredibly difficult to align the 100% pro-life stance, with support for Trump."
Not at all, and here's why:
For Trump to insist upon a federal ban would be in conflict with his duties are president. He is a federal official and the Supreme Court rightly affirmed the issue is a state matter. The 100% pro-lifer (I'm one of them) recognizes the issue was returned to the states because of his presidency and his ability to have a gotten three of his nominees put on the SCOTUS to get to this proper situation.
Now what happens? It's up to those in each state to push for a total ban in their individual states...as should be the case. However, despite being a 110%er, I realize that a total ban in my state could very well result in it's weakly conservative majority disappearing, and then where would my state be?
I don't believe Trump will lose the support of a significant amount of pro-lifers over this intelligent and pragmatic position he took. It was the right one to take given the issue was decided by the SCOTUS.
Now, like so much of the conservative point of view, it's up to the individual to make the case to any and all leftists in one's sphere of influence, as well as to continually engage with federal and state reps to let them know which way the wind really blows.
Finally, I would say that a federal ban on abortions should be considered within the purview of federal legislators given the absolute and unequivocal fact that one is a person from the moment of conception. At least Alabama's Supreme Court affirm that blatantly obvious fact, though still it didn't go all the way. The left will continue to lie about this, pretending the 1% of rape/incest/life of the mother probabilities rationalizes murdering their own. That will continue to stand in the way of righteousness on this issue. Thus, the pragmatism Trump demonstrated in his recently stated position is proper and a sign of the type of leader we need. God willing, it won't be the only sign we see.
"For Trump to insist upon a federal ban would be in conflict with his duties are president."
1. He's not president.
2. He could propose legislation that would result in a national ban/restriction with no conflict at all.
3. The reason Roe was bad law was not that it was national, it's because passing laws is the function of the legislative branch with the concurrence of the executive.
"The 100% pro-lifer (I'm one of them) recognizes the issue was returned to the states"
Not the one's I'm seeing.
"Now what happens?"
That's obvious, I was quite clear in my post.
"It's up to those in each state to push for a total ban in their individual states...as should be the case."
My point exactly. However, the reality is that this position will absolutely result in states with unlimited abortion for any reason. Returning the issue to the states has guaranteed that.
"However, despite being a 110%er, I realize that a total ban in my state could very well result in it's weakly conservative majority disappearing, and then where would my state be?"
That's my question. The reality is that in 2024 the political viability of a total ban on abortion even at the state level will be virtually zero in most states, without even considering the inevitable lawsuits. The question then, is how do the 100% ers proceed? It's inevitable that compromise in on the horizon, unless one lives in particular states. Are you really ready to sacrifice a slim GOP majority for a total abortion ban? Especially one that will be overturned the minute the DFL takes over.
"I don't believe Trump will lose the support of a significant amount of pro-lifers over this intelligent and pragmatic position he took."
1. Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant.
2. Again, I'm seeing a trend from pro-lifers to do exactly this. It may pass, but it may not, we'll see.
3. Trump needs all the voters he can get, why make this announcement at this time? Especially when it has the potential to push voters away?
4. If this is the case, then the doctrinaire, 100%, True believer, pro life folks are going to have to do something they never even contemplated before on this issue, compromise.
5. When you are a single issue voter, and your party of choice/POTUS candidate of choice, stops supporting your single issue, what do you do?
"Now, like so much of the conservative point of view, it's up to the individual to make the case to any and all leftists in one's sphere of influence, as well as to continually engage with federal and state reps to let them know which way the wind really blows."
This'll be interesting to see. Given the standard response of many of the hard core pro-life crowd is to hurl vitriol and call anyone who disagrees with them murderers, I suspect that those tactics are not going to be effective at persuasion. Like continually referring to those who disagree with you as "morons" and claiming that your position is the only (rational, intelligent, reasonable) one. (You/your in the broad sense)
"The left will continue to lie about this, pretending the 1% of rape/incest/life of the mother probabilities rationalizes murdering their own."
This is a given, and the pro-life refusal to jump on this gift is mystifying. If pro-lifers would simply agree that those three exceptions should be embraced (eliminating 99% of abortions), it places the left in an untenable position. They either have to admit that they were lying, or agree to ban 99% of abortions. Unfortunately, the hard core pro-life crowd is obsessed with perfection on this issue.
"That will continue to stand in the way of righteousness on this issue."
That's one thing.
"Thus, the pragmatism Trump demonstrated in his recently stated position is proper and a sign of the type of leader we need. God willing, it won't be the only sign we see."
Interesting take. I think that many will see this as a betrayal of the pro-life cause. One more flip on his position on abortion. There is no way that his current position aligns with his previous assertion that he was pro-life in any meaningful way. I suspect that (and we'll see once the polling starts to come in) that this position was pragmatic only in the sense that it might appeal to certain swing voters, not based in any conviction.
As I said, Trump's position is the only politically and legally correct position to take. The timing of this announcement seems strange, but whatever. The political reality, as you have demonstrated, is that the 100% pro-life folks are going to have to choose between their single issue, and voting for Trump. I suspect, again we'll see, that eventually they'll hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils just like a lot of people. Clearly, Trump's version of what is essentially a pro-choice position (certainly on a state level) is better than Biden's version. Just as clearly Trump's position is (like one of his COVID responses) one rooted in federalism, which has been virtually extinguished in the last 100 years.
This is much more about the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd being forced to abandon their no compromise position, than about Trump's position, and his retraction of his earlier claim to be pro-life.
""For Trump to insist upon a federal ban would be in conflict with his duties are president."
1. He's not president."
He doesn't have to be to insist on a federal ban, if that's what he thinks is best. I'm not president and I insist on a federal ban based on the fact that the Constitution protects against the unjust termination of human life.
"2. He could propose legislation that would result in a national ban/restriction with no conflict at all."
Clearly that's not true so long as so many death mongers exist on the left. While they do, conflict will result in any attempt to impede on their fictitious right to murder with impunity.
"3. The reason Roe was bad law was not that it was national, it's because passing laws is the function of the legislative branch with the concurrence of the executive."
That's only partially true. Without the recognition of the conceived being people, it can only be a states' rights issue where some will recognize truth and others will dismiss it like Dan rejecting Scriptural truths he finds inconvenient.
""The 100% pro-lifer (I'm one of them) recognizes the issue was returned to the states"
Not the one's I'm seeing."
How can anyone not when that is precisely what the Dobbs decision did?
""Now what happens?"
That's obvious, I was quite clear in my post."
I was, too, in my comment as follows:
""It's up to those in each state to push for a total ban in their individual states...as should be the case."
My point exactly. However, the reality is that this position will absolutely result in states with unlimited abortion for any reason. Returning the issue to the states has guaranteed that."
That just means that in states where abortion is less restricted will require it's pro-life citizens to step up their efforts at bringing the murderous among them to truth. Or they will abandon their homes to live in states which acknowledge truth.
"The reality is that in 2024 the political viability of a total ban on abortion even at the state level will be virtually zero in most states, without even considering the inevitable lawsuits. The question then, is how do the 100% ers proceed? It's inevitable that compromise in on the horizon, unless one lives in particular states. Are you really ready to sacrifice a slim GOP majority for a total abortion ban? Especially one that will be overturned the minute the DFL takes over."
And that's the argument from many in the GOP, like my own low character rep Nancy Mace, who insists on compromising with the murderous. But a compromise provides time to get to the ultimate goal, which an increasing GOP majority should be striving to achieve. Can't get the goal without a bigger team. Ultimately, it will take a Constitutional amendment which acknowledges the humanity of the conceived, in a way more to the point than even the recent Alabama ruling on IVF. This will also require constant correction of the lies used to protect abortion, and the shaming of those who perpetuate them.
""I don't believe Trump will lose the support of a significant amount of pro-lifers over this intelligent and pragmatic position he took."
1. Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant."
You clearly "believe" the opposite, so...
"2. Again, I'm seeing a trend from pro-lifers to do exactly this. It may pass, but it may not, we'll see."
A trend from pro-lifers to reject a pro-life candidate in favor of allowing a pro-abortion party succeed? I doubt that trend is very significant. And again, if you're in contact with any such people, step up and set them straight about the crappy trade-off.
"3. Trump needs all the voters he can get, why make this announcement at this time? Especially when it has the potential to push voters away?"
Trump needs ostensibly intelligent people to step up and vocally promote him as the best candidate currently available that he clearly is. One way is by noting that there are those like Lindsey Graham proposing a nation-wide ban after 15 weeks which will rally the death mongers of the left. Trump's announcement mitigates this by reassuring the death mongers he has no plans for a nationwide ban.
"4. If this is the case, then the doctrinaire, 100%, True believer, pro life folks are going to have to do something they never even contemplated before on this issue, compromise."
The pro-lifer has always been faced with such. The primaries are a time to manifest this position. This is possibly the one issue which proves the flaw of the one issue voter. To refuse to vote for Trump because he isn't pushing for a total ban on the federal level will result in victory for those who want abortion for any reason. You know this as well as I do and where I encounter any pro-lifer expressing a plan to reject Trump on the basis of this announcement will provoke a discussion exposing the stupidity of that position. That's how pro-lifers with even the few working brain cells I possess operate.
"5. When you are a single issue voter, and your party of choice/POTUS candidate of choice, stops supporting your single issue, what do you do?"
It's not what the single issue voter does. It's what those with sense do when confronting such a person. Trump isn't promoting abortion. Therefore, he's not abandoned anyone. As the issue stands, it's a state issue and not a federal one. The problem of liars having convinced enough people the conceived aren't people has never been resolved and that's where those single issue people need to be focusing their attention. That and the fact that sexual intercourse for fun and self-gratification is seriously immoral and the source of so many related problems in our nation.
"This'll be interesting to see. Given the standard response of many of the hard core pro-life crowd is to hurl vitriol and call anyone who disagrees with them murderers, I suspect that those tactics are not going to be effective at persuasion."
Aside from the fact that it's a matter of how that message is presented, you seem content to sit back and do nothing but watch it play out. Nice. How very American of you.
" Like continually referring to those who disagree with you as "morons" and claiming that your position is the only (rational, intelligent, reasonable) one."
Get off it, pal. This constant referencing of my blog comments as if anyone reads our blogs in great numbers is absurd bullshit. And I defend my positions beyond merely stating they're the "only (rational, intelligent, reasonable) one" and you damned well know it.
"This is a given, and the pro-life refusal to jump on this gift is mystifying. If pro-lifers would simply agree that those three exceptions should be embraced (eliminating 99% of abortions), it places the left in an untenable position."
I don't know that there's too many pro-lifers who don't jump on this gift. What data do you have which bears this out? I hear more working this angle than those rejecting it as the outcome is far better than nothing. But the left ain't biting because they know it's got nothing to do with rape, incest or life of the mother for them. That's just their ploy.
" Interesting take. I think that many will see this as a betrayal of the pro-life cause."
"Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant."
"There is no way that his current position aligns with his previous assertion that he was pro-life in any meaningful way."
If we lose all control in government, how does that help the pro-life agenda? Thus, this isn't a contradiction at all but a recognition on the state of the debate. What's more, it is recognition of the wisdom of the Dobbs ruling leaving the issue to the states where so many believe it belonged in the first place. And that's indeed wisdom on Trump's part given how much harder a nut it is to crack to get the murderous to respect the conceived as the people they are.
" I suspect that (and we'll see once the polling starts to come in) that this position was pragmatic only in the sense that it might appeal to certain swing voters, not based in any conviction. "
Perhaps, but "Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant."
"As I said, Trump's position is the only politically and legally correct position to take. The timing of this announcement seems strange, but whatever."
Once again, Graham just proposed federal legislation to limit abortions to those within 15 weeks. That explains the timing.
"This is much more about the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd being forced to abandon their no compromise position, than about Trump's position, and his retraction of his earlier claim to be pro-life."
I don't know that the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd is as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are in order to take the position Trump said something stupid again. In the meantime, I know that this announcement does not stand as any retraction of his pro-life position just because he's acknowledging it is a state issue and not a federal one as it now stands. Again, everything about this issue hinges on two things never discussed:
1. The argument that the Constitution already protects against unjust termination of life if only the conceived could find widespread acknowledgement of their humanity. While pro-lifers speak to this, they are not pushing to tie it to Constitutional protections as they should. It's more lip service than an actual argument based on those two related things.
2. The argument of personal responsibility with regard to sexual relations. I'd love to see more public pronouncements regarding the fact that the only proper setting for sexual relations is within a marital context. I won't hold my breath for this one, but it's of vital importance to ending the practice of abortion.
"He doesn't have to be to insist on a federal ban, if that's what he thinks is best. I'm not president and I insist on a federal ban based on the fact that the Constitution protects against the unjust termination of human life."
You just said that a federal ban would conflict with his "duties as president". You also just argued that the repeal of Roe mad the issue a states issue, as it should be. If there is a federal ban it has to be legislated, which means that Trump has little role in that. If legislated, it would have to have input from the DFL (look at P-BO care getting rammed through), which rules out a complete ban anyway. And this ban would get repealed as soon as the DFL took control of congress. Good plan.
"Clearly that's not true so long as so many death mongers exist on the left. While they do, conflict will result in any attempt to impede on their fictitious right to murder with impunity."
You're the one who insisted that Trump proposing a federal ban would "conflict with his duties as president", I'm just playing along with your premise.
"That's only partially true."
No. Roe didn't address the additional issues you bring up, which are a separate, but related issue. The problem with Roe was always that it was legislating from the bench based on a constitutional right which isn't in the constitution.
"How can anyone not when that is precisely what the Dobbs decision did?"
I'm referring to the number of 100% abolitionists I'm seeing.
"That just means that in states where abortion is less restricted will require it's pro-life citizens to step up their efforts at bringing the murderous among them to truth. Or they will abandon their homes to live in states which acknowledge truth."
1. Pro-life isn't an exclusively Christian position.
2. While that is the hoped for outcome, the reality is that an uncompromising total abolition stance will almost guarantee more abortions as pro-abortion states offset pro-life states.
3. I'm not arguing against abolition as a goal, I'm simply arguing that it will require compromise, which will result in large numbers of abortions.
"And that's the argument from many in the GOP, like my own low character rep Nancy Mace, who insists on compromising with the murderous."
1. Insisting on total abolition is also a compromise. It allows larger numbers of abortions in the short/medium term against the hope that there will be zero at some time in the future.
2. Like it or not, referring to pro-abortion folks as murderous is unlikely to be effective in persuading them to engage in any compromise. Regardless of the semantic argument. You do you, but don't complain when you don't persuade.
"But a compromise provides time to get to the ultimate goal, which an increasing GOP majority should be striving to achieve."
Time in which abortion will continue unchecked, or minimally checked. It's a reality, but don't pretend that abortion won't continue and that your compromise won't include murdered babies. It also assumes a GOP majority that would be permanent enough to prevent repeal, and SCOTUS never changing it's composition. You can shit in one hand, and hope in the other...
"Can't get the goal without a bigger team. Ultimately, it will take a Constitutional amendment which acknowledges the humanity of the conceived, in a way more to the point than even the recent Alabama ruling on IVF. This will also require constant correction of the lies used to protect abortion, and the shaming of those who perpetuate them."
While those things are true, what is the realistic likelihood that we'll ever see a constitutional amendment. FYI, the Truth isn't going to matter to the pro-abortion folks, it doesn't now.
"You clearly "believe" the opposite, so..."
I believe that the opposite very well could happen, and I don't offer my "belief" as proof.
"A trend from pro-lifers to reject a pro-life candidate in favor of allowing a pro-abortion party succeed?"
Well, this presumes that Trump is pro-life which his recent statement call into question. Yes, I'm seeing quite a few pro-life individuals and groups making noise about not supporting Trump if he advocates what they consider a "pro choice" position. Personally, I think Trump probably should have kept pandering to the hardcore pro-life folks instead of what he did. Even though what he did was correct.
"I doubt that trend is very significant. And again, if you're in contact with any such people, step up and set them straight about the crappy trade-off."
Well, if you say so. I'm sure they'll be receptive you your "shut up and do what you're told" persuasion strategy.
"Trump's announcement mitigates this by reassuring the death mongers he has no plans for a nationwide ban."
Since you are supportive of a nationwide ban, why would you praise Trump for telling the pro-abortion folks that he won't interfere?
"Trump needs ostensibly intelligent people to step up and vocally promote him as the best candidate currently available that he clearly is."
While that would be nice, he really needs to attract voters. But I get the appeal of "He's not worse than Biden." catchy slogan. Inspiring.
"The pro-lifer has always been faced with such."
They have, but have been so focused on repealing Roe that they had no plan for what happens when it was repealed. For years they've been arguing that the states should decide, and states are deciding. They/we got the result we wanted, but are now lost as to how to proceed.
" To refuse to vote for Trump because he isn't pushing for a total ban on the federal level will result in victory for those who want abortion for any reason"
Or maybe they're pissed that he changed his position on them.
" Trump isn't promoting abortion."
He's promoting the fact that he's fine if some states decide to allow abortion at any time, in any place, for any reason, solely because it's the state's choice.
I think your confused an think that I fundamentally disagree with you, I don't. I'm pointing out that the pro-life folks are going to have to compromise in a way that will allow thousands of abortions, no matter which path they choose. The sooner they/we face that and figure out a strategy the better.
"Perhaps, but "Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant.""
I literally didn't do that. I literally made it clear that I was not making a claim of fact, and that the accuracy of my "suspicion" would be borne out by polling data and election results (polling data in another form). I wasn't making an argument as much as offering my best opinion on how things might go, said opinion to be modified as data comes in.
"Once again, Graham just proposed federal legislation to limit abortions to those within 15 weeks. That explains the timing."
Possibly, although Graham proposing legislation is the definition of futile.
"I don't know that the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd is as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are in order to take the position Trump said something stupid again. In the meantime, I know that this announcement does not stand as any retraction of his pro-life position just because he's acknowledging it is a state issue and not a federal one as it now stands. Again, everything about this issue hinges on two things never discussed:"
Maybe, maybe not. But they are loud, relatively organized, and carry a fair bit of clout.
1. That is an argument, and a related argument, but it's not directly about an abortion ban.
2. Obviously, good luck legislating that.
"Aside from the fact that it's a matter of how that message is presented, you seem content to sit back and do nothing but watch it play out. Nice. How very American of you."
Well, if you say so. Although I do think that calling anyone who's remotely pro-choice "murderous" probably isn't effective at persuasion either.
"Get off it, pal. This constant referencing of my blog comments as if anyone reads our blogs in great numbers is absurd bullshit. And I defend my positions beyond merely stating they're the "only (rational, intelligent, reasonable) one" and you damned well know it."
I'm merely pointing out that that sort of thing isn't persuasive.
"I don't know that there's too many pro-lifers who don't jump on this gift. What data do you have which bears this out? I hear more working this angle than those rejecting it as the outcome is far better than nothing. But the left ain't biting because they know it's got nothing to do with rape, incest or life of the mother for them. That's just their ploy."
I see it regularly, I'm not sure there's definitive data (Dan) but it's not an outlying position at all. Listen to Walsh or Allie Beth Stuckey for a couple of examples. I realize that it's their ploy, so call their bluff and use their ploy to win something significant. I'd personally be thrilled if we could eliminate 99% of abortion with that compromise.
Again, offering my opinion based on what I'm seeing is simply that. It's not and never will be an attempt to assert a factual, objectively True point.
"If we lose all control in government, how does that help the pro-life agenda?"
Irrelevant. If the standard is that one must be 100% pro-life or nothing then this change has the appear ace of a betrayal or a switch. But we don't have control of government now, so let's compromise with the "pro-murder" folks to get Trump elected. Look, he's making a reasonable electoral choice. He knows that the pro-lifers will likely hold their noses and vote for him any way, so he's trying to sway some "pro-murder" folks his way so he can win. How doe selecting a candidate who's "pro-choice" help?
"Thus, this isn't a contradiction at all but a recognition on the state of the debate. What's more, it is recognition of the wisdom of the Dobbs ruling leaving the issue to the states where so many believe it belonged in the first place. And that's indeed wisdom on Trump's part given how much harder a nut it is to crack to get the murderous to respect the conceived as the people they are."
If the Dobbs ruling was so wonderful, why are you advocating for a national law? Let the states decide.
EXAMPLE OF THE RESPONSE TO TRUMP
I will not vote for
@realDonaldTrump
unless something very drastic changes.
He refuses to do his duty under King Jesus and use his federal power to protect all humans under his jurisdiction. He is now leading other Republicans down the ballot to distance themselves from attempted abortion bans and even weighing in on state abortion policy.
This is unacceptable and depraved. He will face a terrible judgment day unless he repents, turns to Christ, and vows to govern justly.
Conservative evangelicals cannot continue to be a guaranteed voting bloc for
@realDonaldTrump
and other Republicans. One of the cardinal rules of politics is not rewarding allies when they betray you, unless you want to be betrayed even more and even worse in the future.
@realDonaldTrump
: Please earn my vote back. Reverse course on this wicked trajectory, do your duty before God, and vow to support equal protection of the laws for preborn babies.
I will plan to write in
@DustyDeevers
instead for now. May God raise up a new generation of civil authorities who will honor King Jesus and fulfill their duties with justice and righteousness.
EXAMPLE OF THE RESPONSE TO TRUMP
This is it. I’m out. Trump has officially lost my vote.
No sincere Christians can vote for Trump while he is now openly & boldly advocating for abortion. This is not a matter of Christian liberty anymore. It’s sinful to vote for the man.
TRUMP RESPONSE TO A QUESTION
Q: "Did Arizona go too far?"
Former President Trump: "Yeah, they did. That'll be straightened out. As you know it's all about state's rights. It'll be straightened out. I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going bring it back to within reason..."
trump literally just said that a law less restrictive than what you are advocating for is "going too far".
RESPONSE TO TRUMP
"This is a such a stupid move. The ONLY reason a lot of evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump was because he was ostensibly pro-life."
I'll repeat myself.
I agree with Trump's basic position. Overturning Roe sent abortion law back to the states, and in doing so opened up the option of extremely pro abortion laws.
Given that, his comments on AZ are stupid. He's clearly not pro-life in any meaningful sense, and certainly not in the sense that most Christian pro-lifers are.
But hey, it's not his fault if people don't hold their noses and vote for him.
"Weak, weak statement that is a signal for independents who will never vote for him anyway.
- IVF involves eugenics, the indefinite freezing of embryos and the mass discarding of embryos
- Babies conceived via rape/incest are just as much babies as any other. Why do they deserve the death penalty for the circumstances of their conception?
This simply isn’t a pro-life statement."
"Pro-life evangelicals make a huge voting block, yet we’ve got exactly 0 presidential candidates vying for our vote. RFK picked a far-left social justice activist, and Donald Trump’s out here reminding those to the left of us that he’s a squish on abortion.
Trump’s statement was a signal to the left that threw truly pro-life Christians under the bus. The cheering of IVF, support of nonsensical abortion exceptions, and his “will of the people” repetition are all ways to convey the message, “See? I’m not like those radicals to the right of me! I’m moderate! Sane! Compassionate! Pro-democracy!” He’s been successfully empathy-shamed by the left and still thinks somehow that he’s going to convince some of them to vote for him.
It is what it is. Trump is currently the most pro-life candidate of the bunch. It’s just downright sad."
"If you tell me that as a matter of prudence and smart political strategy a Republican candidate should not call for a federal ban on abortion, I can buy that.
But what we are actually seeing from many Republicans right now goes far beyond that. They are running to the Left, openly opposing even statewide pro-life laws, and preemptively surrendering the argument out of fear.
This is what Republicans have been doing for decades, by the way, and it has never paid off. You can't win pro-abortion votes by being mildly pro-abortion. Those voters will always go with the Democrat anyway.
You have no choice but to buck up, grow a spine, and actually make the pro-life case. Go on offense. Stand your ground. The pro-life case is incredibly compelling, but you have to make it. You cannot win an argument you refuse to have."
MORE RESPONSE
https://stream.org/trumps-abortion-stance-half-a-loaf-or-a-poison-pill/
"Within the states-rights reality created by the Dobbs decision, which Trump endorses, we have major battles ahead in states like Arizona and Florida. We had a major battle in Ohio, and few major pro-life groups even bothered to spend any money fighting a wicked, deceptive ballot initiative that went far beyond Roe v. Wade. But some of those groups’ leaders are now bashing Donald Trump. Why? Because it covers their shame, makes them seem like they’re doing something."
That hits hard. What I offered today was counsel to the Trump campaign on how to avoid demoralizing its pro-life base. The non-leaders. Feels matter. Enthusiasm matters. And he hasn't given them any reason to have any with his recent remarks.
But the failure of some pro-life leaders on the right to actually fight for the things they say they believe matters too. It's so clear, a savvy politician is not going to fail to see it...
This is the tough love they need to hear."
Wow. Lots of responses. This will take time.
"You just said that a federal ban would conflict with his "duties as president". You also just argued that the repeal of Roe mad the issue a states issue, as it should be. If there is a federal ban it has to be legislated, which means that Trump has little role in that. If legislated, it would have to have input from the DFL (look at P-BO care getting rammed through), which rules out a complete ban anyway. And this ban would get repealed as soon as the DFL took control of congress. Good plan."
For Trump to impose a federal ban on his own is certainly in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling, but to insist on a federal ban is no different than any other proposal a president may offer. His budget, for example, is a proposal, not a law or exec order. It's his insistence on fiscal behavior. In the same or similar way, to call for a federal ban is his right. I would like to see him argue for one as such a ban is within Constitutional principles. That it would have to be debated and argued and come to a vote is beside the point, but the way it's supposed to work in this country. Hopefully, it will eventually get to a point where a Constitutional amendment codifies the fact that the conceived are people as worthy of the unalienable right to life as are any person lucky enough to not have been murdered in utero by their parents.
In the meantime, this insistence must be a matter of incremental movement toward the only righteous goal. To try to force compliance in the face of so many who demand the "right" to murder their unborn for any reason whatsoever is foolhardy politically...political suicide, in fact...and any pro-lifer who insists upon it needs to be disabused of the notion if they truly care about saving lives. Where were they prior to Roe being decided? If they weren't of age, they have to deal with the situation as it stands, and that means voting for the better person less likely to move to allow abortion on demand.
"You're the one who insisted that Trump proposing a federal ban would "conflict with his duties as president", I'm just playing along with your premise."
No. You're just playing games. His duties as president is to enforce the laws as they exist. That does not preclude him from promoting changes to those laws. But in doing so, he must also balance that against the murderous intent of the pro-abortion crowd. He's trying to walk that tightrope now. No one should pretend he's flip-flopping.
"1. Pro-life isn't an exclusively Christian position.
2. While that is the hoped for outcome, the reality is that an uncompromising total abolition stance will almost guarantee more abortions as pro-abortion states offset pro-life states.
3. I'm not arguing against abolition as a goal, I'm simply arguing that it will require compromise, which will result in large numbers of abortions."
Then we are simpatico on these points.
"1. Insisting on total abolition is also a compromise."
On its face, it's the exact opposite of "compromise". Allowing some abortions now to get to the ultimate goal is compromising. NOT insisting on total abolition.
"2. Like it or not, referring to pro-abortion folks as murderous is unlikely to be effective in persuading them to engage in any compromise. Regardless of the semantic argument. You do you, but don't complain when you don't persuade."
When I speak to those like you or others on my side of the issue, the word is totally appropriate because abortion is murder, given there's never any legitimate reason for it.
When I speak to one of those who support this murderous practice, I speak in terms of what abortion truly is and how there's never any legitimate reason for its practice. "Doing me" involves the hard, cold truth and those who do wrong need to feel the shame and remorse recognizing doing wrong is supposed to elicit in people of good moral character. "Doing you" leaves morality out of it, which gives such people the liberty to pretend they're just disagreeing on the basis of what are false and cheap rationalizations.
When folks used to hold up large pictures of aborted babies at busy intersections, folks were outraged, but many understood what abortion truly is. When pregnant women see ultrasound images of their unborn child, they understand what a fetus is. Truth is imperative and more so the more life is at stake.
"Time in which abortion will continue unchecked, or minimally checked. It's a reality, but don't pretend that abortion won't continue and that your compromise won't include murdered babies. It also assumes a GOP majority that would be permanent enough to prevent repeal, and SCOTUS never changing it's composition. You can shit in one hand, and hope in the other..."
This belies your position that reducing abortion to only rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother is a worthy compromise. Abortions...unnecessary regardless of the reason given...will continue. But even in your criticism of me, they will lessen...they will be more difficult to achieve...they will be a step in the right direction. I assume nothing about a GOP majority, so clear am I on the shortcomings of the party. So stop shitting on me with this nonsense.
"While those things are true, what is the realistic likelihood that we'll ever see a constitutional amendment. FYI, the Truth isn't going to matter to the pro-abortion folks, it doesn't now."
"Likelihood" of success is no reason to abandon the goal and the effort to get to it. Thus, how high or low the likelihood is irrelevant to those with the passion to persevere.
Whether or not the truth matters to scumbags is also irrelevant. I would wager there are still those who do not consider the truth about abortion and the immorality of it. Many of them can be persuaded. Truth doesn't matter to any who indulges in criminal activity and we don't give up passing laws to protect lives and property. Truth didn't matter to the slavers after the practice was outlawed in the United States. Such people don't matter as to doing what's right legislatively. But we can't get there without a majority of the party least likely to approve of abortion on demand.
"I believe that the opposite very well could happen, and I don't offer my "belief" as proof."
Yet you suggest I offer my beliefs as proof for my position. Why is that?
"Well, this presumes that Trump is pro-life which his recent statement call into question."
I could be mistaken, but I believe he's referred to himself as pro-life. Any who suggest that means compromise is hypocrisy and leaving behind the absolutists need to be disabused of that notion by those who regard themselves as politically astute.
"Yes, I'm seeing quite a few pro-life individuals and groups making noise about not supporting Trump if he advocates what they consider a "pro choice" position."
And what are you doing about it?
"Personally, I think Trump probably should have kept pandering to the hardcore pro-life folks instead of what he did. Even though what he did was correct."
But he's in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" conundrum. Drawing the indies versus placating a likely smaller amount of absolutists is possibly the better move...assuming the numbers work in that direction. Either way, he's going to have some choose against voting for him, but I think some of the adamant pro-lifers will come to realize that he's the better choice, and thus his position will result in far fewer rejecting him than you might fear.
"I doubt that trend is very significant. And again, if you're in contact with any such people, step up and set them straight about the crappy trade-off."
"Well, if you say so. I'm sure they'll be receptive you your "shut up and do what you're told" persuasion strategy."
Well step up with your superior argument then, wise guy! Why are you choosing to be an ass?
"Since you are supportive of a nationwide ban, why would you praise Trump for telling the pro-abortion folks that he won't interfere?"
Because a compromise at this point in time will be an incremental step toward the goal, and more importantly at this point, get us the White House, which is the more immediate danger to avoid. Allowing Dems to maintain control will ensure more abortions, not fewer. I think you know this, even if the GOP are spineless.
"For Trump to impose a federal ban on his own is certainly in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling, but to insist on a federal ban is no different than any other proposal a president may offer. "
1. YOU are the one who said "For Trump to insist upon a federal ban would be in conflict with his duties are president.", not me.
2. Just because SCOTUS ruled one way on Roe, does not automatically mean that there is no other way for POTUS to impose a national ban that doesn't conflict with the Dobbs decision.
3. As you point out, Trump can propose anything he wants, which is not in "conflict with his duties as president".
4. The fact that you seem to be arguing against something you said, is strange.
" I would like to see him argue for one as such a ban is within Constitutional principles."
yet he has been quite clear that he absolutely will not do so. He's also bee absolutely clear that despite his claim that it is the states exclusive realm to decide abortion policy, that he will attempt to prevent AZ from doing so.
" Hopefully, it will eventually get to a point where a Constitutional amendment codifies the fact that the conceived are people as worthy of the unalienable right to life as are any person lucky enough to not have been murdered in utero by their parents."
that is a noble hope, but incredibly unlikely. It's also not really the point of this post. Especially since Trump has made it clear that the likelihood of him supporting a constitutional convention or amendment is virtually zero.
"No. You're just playing games."
No. I literally quoted you verbatim. Here, I'll do it again.
"For Trump to insist upon a federal ban would be in conflict with his duties are president."
"His duties as president is to enforce the laws as they exist. That does not preclude him from promoting changes to those laws."
Yet, in the verbatim quote I just pasted, you argue that Trump would "be in conflict with his duties" to "insist upon a federal ban". Are you really suggesting that a president can't enforce current law, while trying to change current law?
It's all moot anyway, since Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of doing anything except trying to overturn AZ's abortion law, despite insisting that it was a state by state decision.
"But in doing so, he must also balance that against the murderous intent of the pro-abortion crowd. He's trying to walk that tightrope now. No one should pretend he's flip-flopping."
He's flip flopped on this issue at least twice publicly. His most recent position is that he's trying to attract those you call "murderous" to vote for him by endorsing the rights of states (except AZ) to enact laws that allow any and all abortions.
"Trump needs ostensibly intelligent people to step up and vocally promote him as the best candidate currently available that he clearly is."
"While that would be nice, he really needs to attract voters. But I get the appeal of "He's not worse than Biden." catchy slogan. Inspiring."
More assholery. Clearly I've given plenty of examples of why one can vote "for" him as opposed to merely voting "against" Biden. It's lying to proceed as if those examples are not legitimate for the purpose and that you'd only be voting against Biden with a pro-Trump vote, as if he hasn't proven himself capable of improving the state of the nation. I'm going to call you out on this stupid lie every time you dare try to run with it. My position has NEVER been based on "Biden's worse".
In the meantime, Trump's attracted lots of voters and despite the problem with polling, he's doing well in all the swing states and among blacks and other minorities. One could argue he's more of a shoe-in than he was in 2020 before that election was stolen from him. My point was again, what the hell are you doing to promote him as the better choice to those who question that fact, given the current state of the nation and how much worse it will get if Biden gets a second term? Why do you pretend you have no obligation whatsoever to do more than sit on your ass and watch it all go to shit?
"The pro-lifer has always been faced with such."
"They have, but have been so focused on repealing Roe that they had no plan for what happens when it was repealed. For years they've been arguing that the states should decide, and states are deciding. They/we got the result we wanted, but are now lost as to how to proceed."
How do you know this? Are you part of any pro-life organization? In the more pro-life states, laws are being proposed and passed. Is that not an example of knowing what to do? In the pro-abortion states, I've no doubt pro-lifers are scrambling to overcome their minority status. That doesn't mean no plan. Some groups may indeed suck, but I wouldn't say they all do.
" To refuse to vote for Trump because he isn't pushing for a total ban on the federal level will result in victory for those who want abortion for any reason"
Or maybe they're pissed that he changed his position on them."
Or maybe they didn't pay attention to what his specific position has been.
"He's promoting the fact that he's fine if some states decide to allow abortion at any time, in any place, for any reason, solely because it's the state's choice."
That's not promoting abortion. That's recognizing the states have a right to decide for themselves. That is how the nation is set up. At the same time, it doesn't preclude him from encouraging any kind of national policy, but it's good that he doesn't do it now as if he doesn't have enough shit interfering with running an effective campaign. That's what matters right now.
I'm having a hard time believing you're sincere about not demanding perfection. Your arguments here don't make it easier.
"I think your confused an think that I fundamentally disagree with you, I don't. I'm pointing out that the pro-life folks are going to have to compromise in a way that will allow thousands of abortions, no matter which path they choose. The sooner they/we face that and figure out a strategy the better."
That's a given and thus we are in agreement there. I had no doubt about it, in fact.
"On its face, it's the exact opposite of "compromise". Allowing some abortions now to get to the ultimate goal is compromising. NOT insisting on total abolition."
Allowing millions of abortions now and for the foreseeable future on the off chance that there will be a total ban at some point in the future is absolutely a compromise. It's just a different compromise.
"When I speak to one of those who support this murderous practice, I speak in terms of what abortion truly is and how there's never any legitimate reason for its practice."
So, you use terms like murderous when talking to those you agree with (except for Dan and the troll), but when talking to others you mask your feelings about it being murder. Gotcha. It sounds like you know that your "murderous" language isn't persuasive already.
"When folks used to hold up large pictures of aborted babies at busy intersections, folks were outraged, but many understood what abortion truly is. When pregnant women see ultrasound images of their unborn child, they understand what a fetus is. Truth is imperative and more so the more life is at stake."
So? None of that is equivalent to referring to random people as "murderous" because they disagree with you. But you already know that and don't do so, because you know that it won't persuade.
"Perhaps, but "Offering "I believe" as support for an argument seems irrelevant.""
"I literally didn't do that. I literally made it clear that I was not making a claim of fact, and that the accuracy of my "suspicion" would be borne out by polling data and election results (polling data in another form). I wasn't making an argument as much as offering my best opinion on how things might go, said opinion to be modified as data comes in."
Remember you said that the next time you see me say "I believe". "I believe/think/suspect..." All the same thing.
" Possibly, although Graham proposing legislation is the definition of futile."
That's true, but he gets enough media attention to provide fodder for the left. Thus, he needs to be addressed by those who will suffer at the polls for him speaking up as he did. He had no reason to bring it up during campaign season. He might want to try the next time he's running and see what it gets him. I'd wager we won't see him do it then.
"I don't know that the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd is as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are in order to take the position Trump said something stupid again. In the meantime, I know that this announcement does not stand as any retraction of his pro-life position just because he's acknowledging it is a state issue and not a federal one as it now stands. Again, everything about this issue hinges on two things never discussed:"
"Maybe, maybe not. But they are loud, relatively organized, and carry a fair bit of clout."
So you're just saying they are as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are.
"This belies your position that reducing abortion to only rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother is a worthy compromise. Abortions...unnecessary regardless of the reason given...will continue."
1. No it doesn't.
2. Compromising on those three exceptions would eliminate 99% of all abortions.
3. Reducing 99% of abortions seems better than allowing them to continue unchecked on the hope of a total ban someday in the future.
4. The fact that to even propose this as a compromise has the benefit of exposing the lies of the pro-abortion crowd because they would never accept it in real life. It would ultimately, I believe, change the dialogue from R/I/M to the reality that the vast majority of abortions are solely for convenience. It's possible that focusing on convenience rather than R/I/M would shift the debate for those in the center.
5. We live in a world where compromise in the only option for the next steps. It's a question of what that compromise is. Leaving it up to the states is a compromise.
"So stop shitting on me with this nonsense."
When you admit that my points are correct, then it seems like referring to those as "nonsense" is inappropriate.
The point, of course, is what Trump is doing and saying right now. Not what someone might do in the future. He's just completely shit on the idea of even a conversation of national restrictions (even though the majority wants some national restrictions), he's shit on FL's state law and said that he wants AZ to change their law. The question is how much further can Trump go away from a pro-life position before he loses the hard core pro-life folks.
""Likelihood" of success is no reason to abandon the goal and the effort to get to it. Thus, how high or low the likelihood is irrelevant to those with the passion to persevere."
I've never said "abandon the goal". I've merely pointed out that advocating for a total national ban on abortion IS a compromise that WILL result in millions of abortions between now and some unknown future. The current issue is Trump and his abrupt change from being adamantly pro-life, to whatever he is now with is objection to states banning abortions via state law.
Again, you can keep trying to expand this beyond the topic, I'll post your comments. But focusing on some unknown, undefined, future when it's theoretically possible to achieve your goal, just distracts from the here and now.
The reality is that Trump has chosen to (potentially) alienate pert of his base (pro-life voters) in an attempt to convince some pro-abortion voters to vote for him. I agree with his conclusions re repealing Roe, I agree that it's potentially a good political move, and I agree that he has to broaden his appeal to win.
The problem is how many pro-life voters will he sacrifice on the way? Will pro-life voters continue to tout his pro-life record, as he moves away from a pro-life position? Will pro-lifers acknowledge the compromises they are making?
"I see it regularly, I'm not sure there's definitive data (Dan) but it's not an outlying position at all. Listen to Walsh or Allie Beth Stuckey for a couple of examples. I realize that it's their ploy, so call their bluff and use their ploy to win something significant. I'd personally be thrilled if we could eliminate 99% of abortion with that compromise."
You misunderstand. I like the argument, but I just don't think it's working because the pro-aborts aren't really concerned about rape/incest/life of the mother. They just don't want anybody stopping them from murdering their unborn if they feel like doing so.
"If we lose all control in government, how does that help the pro-life agenda?"
"Irrelevant."
It's not at all irrelevant because winning in November is the point. There's no getting closer to the goal with the pro-aborts running the show. Pretty basic stuff, really.
"If the standard is that one must be 100% pro-life or nothing then this change has the appear ace of a betrayal or a switch."
That assumes a change took place. The politically astute need to step up and explain to the politically confused. There's no betrayal here if Trump never insisted he was going to totally outlaw abortion in the first place. Wanting it outlawed is different than proclaiming that's what he intends to see happen during his next term. He may strive to push us close, he may simply leave it to the states. But to pretend he's betrayed anyone needs to be put to rest. It's bullshit.
"But we don't have control of government now, so let's compromise with the "pro-murder" folks to get Trump elected. Look, he's making a reasonable electoral choice. He knows that the pro-lifers will likely hold their noses and vote for him any way, so he's trying to sway some "pro-murder" folks his way so he can win. How doe selecting a candidate who's "pro-choice" help?"
But he's not pro-choice simply because he doesn't want to scare off any who might otherwise vote for him over Biden simply because of abortion. He's not promoting abortion in any way, is he? No. He isn't. But abortion is still a major issue for some fools and if it's the one thing they fear he'll take from them, why allow them to believe it and lose their votes. No one the pro-life side should be crapping on him because he won't lose the election by proclaiming "DEATH TO ABORTION!!!" They're cutting their own throats.
"Thus, this isn't a contradiction at all but a recognition on the state of the debate. What's more, it is recognition of the wisdom of the Dobbs ruling leaving the issue to the states where so many believe it belonged in the first place. And that's indeed wisdom on Trump's part given how much harder a nut it is to crack to get the murderous to respect the conceived as the people they are."
"If the Dobbs ruling was so wonderful, why are you advocating for a national law? Let the states decide."
Because I want such a law and because with Dobbs, some states are restricting abortion more than they had already done prior. It's pushing the culture toward the ultimate goal, even if the current climate is inflamed by fears of the pro-aborts and the Dems who do all they can to stoke those fears.
Time out. Gotta take care of some biz.
"My point was again, what the hell are you doing to promote him as the better choice to those who question that fact, given the current state of the nation and how much worse it will get if Biden gets a second term?"
You bitch when I point out that "better then Biden" is an incredibly low bar, then literally offer that same rationale. The problem is that I don't go about it the same way you do, and you conclude that any other way makes one a "moron".
"Why do you pretend you have no obligation whatsoever to do more than sit on your ass and watch it all go to shit?"
Where have I said this? Quote and link.
"How do you know this?"
Because I watch and listen. I'm aware of the different things being said.
"Are you part of any pro-life organization?"
Irrelevant.
"In the more pro-life states, laws are being proposed and passed. Is that not an example of knowing what to do?"
Yes. But the constant clamor for a national ban indicates that there are clearly many people who were not prepared for a post Roe world. As does the existence of people who complain when states pass pro-abortion laws.
"In the pro-abortion states, I've no doubt pro-lifers are scrambling to overcome their minority status. That doesn't mean no plan. Some groups may indeed suck, but I wouldn't say they all do."
Good for you.
"Or maybe they didn't pay attention to what his specific position has been."
Maybe. Or maybe they concluded that when he said he was "pro-life" that he meant what he said.
" That's not promoting abortion."
Of course I didn't say that. I did say that he was clear that he has no objection to states deciding to pass pro-abortion laws. Yet, objects to FL and AZ passing pro-life laws.
"That's recognizing the states have a right to decide for themselves."
That's what I said. He's recognizing and approving of state laws regardless of how extreme they might be. Except FL and AZ.
"That is how the nation is set up."
Again, thanks for restating the obvious. Yet he's being supportive of states enacting laws that favor abortion and critical of states where it's being restricted.
"At the same time, it doesn't preclude him from encouraging any kind of national policy, but it's good that he doesn't do it now as if he doesn't have enough shit interfering with running an effective campaign. That's what matters right now."
Him saying that he will not propose a national policy is something else entirely. Unless you think he's only saying that to pander to the less extreme pro-abortion crowd and will change his mind if he wins.
"I'm having a hard time believing you're sincere about not demanding perfection. Your arguments here don't make it easier."
that's your problem, not mine. Especially as I've literally agreed that Trump's basic position is correct politically and legally, even as it moves away from what would be considered pro-life.
This really isn't about Trump as much as it is about the die hard, 100% pro-life crowd who bought into Trump as some sort of pro-life warrior who was 100% committed to the cause of abolition. It's about how they'll respond when Trump "flips" on their single issue.
"That's true, but he gets enough media attention to provide fodder for the left. Thus, he needs to be addressed by those who will suffer at the polls for him speaking up as he did. He had no reason to bring it up during campaign season. He might want to try the next time he's running and see what it gets him. I'd wager we won't see him do it then."
Which has what to do with Trump and his turn away from his "pro-life" position?
"I don't know that the hard core, no compromise, pro-life crowd is as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are in order to take the position Trump said something stupid again."
How big or influential they are isn't my point. The reality is that Trump's current position will likely alienate X number of voters to some degree. The hope is that it will attract Y number of new voters, and that Y will be larger than X. Unfortunately, we won't know the answer until November. I'm not saying it's wrong politically, I'm saying that it's a trade off of a previously very loyal group of voters, for a potentially less loyal group of voters.
In any case, if he loses because of this, it'll definitely be his fault.
"In the meantime, I know that this announcement does not stand as any retraction of his pro-life position just because he's acknowledging it is a state issue and not a federal one as it now stands. Again, everything about this issue hinges on two things never discussed:"
If you think so, I guess that's awesome for you. But I suspect you'd think similarly no matter what.
"So you're just saying they are as large or influential as you clearly need to believe they are."
No, I'm saying that groups of any size who are loud enough and passionate enough, often have a degree of clout that belies their numbers.
"You misunderstand. I like the argument, but I just don't think it's working because the pro-aborts aren't really concerned about rape/incest/life of the mother. They just don't want anybody stopping them from murdering their unborn if they feel like doing so."
As I've said, given that, then call their bluff. Make them oppose a bill that gives them exactly what they say they want. Expose the extremists who want to slaughter the unborn (and born) for any reason to those who are simply being empathetic for the poor women who've suffered R/I/M.
"It's not at all irrelevant because winning in November is the point. There's no getting closer to the goal with the pro-aborts running the show. Pretty basic stuff, really."
Which is it? If you are a hard core pro-life abolitionist, isn't the primary goal to stop all abortion? Is the primary goal to reelect a president who's ambivalent about the cause at best. You're imposing your assumptions about how trump might govern on those for whom abortion is THE issue.
"That assumes a change took place. The politically astute need to step up and explain to the politically confused. There's no betrayal here if Trump never insisted he was going to totally outlaw abortion in the first place. Wanting it outlawed is different than proclaiming that's what he intends to see happen during his next term. He may strive to push us close, he may simply leave it to the states. But to pretend he's betrayed anyone needs to be put to rest. It's bullshit."
1. It "assumes" that the hard core pro-life folks perceive that a switch took place.
2. You mean the smart folks like you need to explain to the "morons" why it might take the sacrifice of a few million unborn children on the alter of electing Trump. (hyperbole, but you get the point)
3. If you say so. I'm sure that'll comfort the unsophisticated, single issue, pro-life voters to no end. But I'm sure you'll teach those "morons" what's right.
4. Acknowledging that this is likely to cost him votes, is totally worthy of discussing.
"But he's not pro-choice simply because he doesn't want to scare off any who might otherwise vote for him over Biden simply because of abortion. He's not promoting abortion in any way, is he? No. He isn't. But abortion is still a major issue for some fools and if it's the one thing they fear he'll take from them, why allow them to believe it and lose their votes. No one the pro-life side should be crapping on him because he won't lose the election by proclaiming "DEATH TO ABORTION!!!" They're cutting their own throats."
If he's not explicitly pro-life, then what is he? Thanks for making my point, he's pandering to the centrist pro-aborts at the risk of losing some pro-life support. It's not a bad political move, but as I've shown you, there are some influential pro-life voices that aren't happy. I'm sure that those "fools" like Walsh and Stuckey will be grateful for you to tell them that. The question isn't his shouting "DEATH TO ABORTION", it's whether or not he can embrace enough of the pro-abortion vote to give him more votes than he'll potentially lose among the pro-life voters. I get it, you are convinced that everyone should put aside any firmly held beliefs and simply vote for Trump.
"Because I want such a law and because with Dobbs, some states are restricting abortion more than they had already done prior. It's pushing the culture toward the ultimate goal, even if the current climate is inflamed by fears of the pro-aborts and the Dems who do all they can to stoke those fears"
You say you want such a law, yet think that Trump should campaign on not even bringing up this law that you say you want. Maybe he's just lying about what he'll do if he wins and he'll really pass a national ban.
"You bitch when I point out that "better then Biden" is an incredibly low bar, then literally offer that same rationale."
Nice corruption of my position. Dan Trabue will be proud! My position clearly doesn't rely on the failures of the Biden administration. That Trump was a far, far better president than Biden as well as than Obama is based on his own far, far better track record of beneficial accomplishments. At the same time, it is more than reasonable to point out what a clusterf**k Biden clearly is...to highlight it loudly, in fact...to open the eyes of any who think a return of Donald Trump will be "a great danger to our democracy!!!!".
As regards this issue, the contrast is just as stark. One issue pro-lifers have to realize that Trump has not flipped on his pro-life position, no matter how badly those like you like to insist he has.
"The problem is that I don't go about it the same way you do, and you conclude that any other way makes one a "moron"."
The problem is that I don't see you going about it at all. Your focus is continually on Trump's "stupid" comments and pretend all that is needed is for him to restrain himself from saying anything Craig might view as "stupid".
"Why do you pretend you have no obligation whatsoever to do more than sit on your ass and watch it all go to shit?"
"Where have I said this?"
You've said this recently by expressing your opinion it's up to the candidate to win over voters, as if any candidate ever does so all alone. You said this in response to my pointing out that it's incumbent upon all to promote the best electoral outcome. Thus, by your position, you're sitting on your ass doing nothing. You posted quotes from X and I believe I asked how you responded to these people. Still waiting.
"Because I watch and listen. I'm aware of the different things being said."
And what has been your response to these different things being said? Provide an example.
"Are you part of any pro-life organization?"
"Irrelevant."
Totally relevant when the point was that following Roe, pro-lifers had no plan for how the 50 states will address abortion. You might find such a plan by researching such organizations, rather than simply reading posts on X.
"Yes. But the constant clamor for a national ban indicates that there are clearly many people who were not prepared for a post Roe world. As does the existence of people who complain when states pass pro-abortion laws."
Boo-hoo. How do they compare in number against those who were? I don't see this as being a point of importance, as such is more than likely true regarding any and every ruling of any court.
"Or maybe they didn't pay attention to what his specific position has been."
"Maybe. Or maybe they concluded that when he said he was "pro-life" that he meant what he said."
He hasn't shown that he didn't mean it. Why would anyone think so? He's as pro-life as you are. Are you not pro-life because you allow for the same three exceptions to a ban as does he?
" I did say that he was clear that he has no objection to states deciding to pass pro-abortion laws. Yet, objects to FL and AZ passing pro-life laws."
This is absurd. He never stated having no objection to passing pro-abortion laws. He allows that states have the right to decide for themselves. Those are two very different things. He sees the pro-abort states as places where more work needs to be done.
I believe his objections to FL and AZ has more to do with the impact on the upcoming election and how Dems will exploit these states' laws to inflame the passions of pro-aborts. All I know is that he hasn't fully explained what he meant by his comments referencing those state laws and no one seems to give a flying f**k to ever ask him what he means.
"That's what I said. He's recognizing and approving of state laws regardless of how extreme they might be."
This is certainly how you're choosing to spin it. Recognizing one has the right to decide an issue for themselves is not the same as approving their decision. Why do you purposely conflate these two disparate things as if they're the same...which is dishonest?
"Again, thanks for restating the obvious. Yet he's being supportive of states enacting laws that favor abortion and critical of states where it's being restricted."
Again, thanks for proving you're cool with perverting what he's saying or doing. How very MSM of you.
" Him saying that he will not propose a national policy is something else entirely. Unless you think he's only saying that to pander to the less extreme pro-abortion crowd and will change his mind if he wins."
You suggest pandering, I'm suggesting walking the tightrope of political rhetoric. However, if he's pandering for votes from the pro-aborts, I'm totally cool if he changes his mind in his lame duck term. We're talking about life here and I'm not concerned that those who care so little for it would be duped by such pandering.
Gotta do some chores now. More to come.
"That Trump was a far, far better president than Biden as well as than Obama is based on his own far, far better track record of beneficial accomplishments."
Based on your subjectively interpreted comparisons between them. You can't offer "better than Biden" as some sort of catch all reason, without acknowledging how low that bar is.
" At the same time, it is more than reasonable to point out what a clusterf**k Biden clearly is...to highlight it loudly, in fact...to open the eyes of any who think a return of Donald Trump will be "a great danger to our democracy!!!!"."
My point exactly, as long as Trump is less than a cluster, you'll be happy and tout your support for him.
"As regards this issue, the contrast is just as stark. One issue pro-lifers have to realize that Trump has not flipped on his pro-life position, no matter how badly those like you like to insist he has."
1. His own words literally demonstrate that you're wrong. He claimed to be pro-choice, then pro-life, now pro states deciding (which can be either, as he pointed out). He's been quite clear that his position is that he's fine with states that decide on a pro-abortion stance, while he's gone after states that have been explicitly pro-life. It's like saying Trump is pro-life, as long as pro-life is defined as Trump's current position.
"The problem is that I don't see you going about it at all."
Well, if you don't "see" it then it must not exist. But thanks for making my point, I choose to hope that Trump will do better, not simply accept less than just because.
"You've said this recently by expressing your opinion it's up to the candidate to win over voters, as if any candidate ever does so all alone."
What a strange notion. Expecting that the candidate and his campaign will put forth the effort to convince voters to vote for them based on specifics regarding policy. What a horrible expectation.
"You said this in response to my pointing out that it's incumbent upon all to promote the best electoral outcome. Thus, by your position, you're sitting on your ass doing nothing. You posted quotes from X and I believe I asked how you responded to these people. Still waiting."
"best electoral outcome" is subjective, so that seems a problematic standard. I was unaware that my X comments (or lack thereof) were subject to your approval.
"Totally relevant when the point was that following Roe, pro-lifers had no plan for how the 50 states will address abortion. You might find such a plan by researching such organizations, rather than simply reading posts on X."
It's fascinating to watch how you let your assumptions drive you. As if I must be a "member" of an Art approved "pro-life organization" to access some secret plans. As if it wasn't possible to be aware of and watch how these "plans" have gone. It's interesting that Trump just washed his hands of involvement in national pro-life legislation or executive action, and announced that FL and AZ did their legislation wrong, but your focused on me.
" I don't see this as being a point of importance, as such is more than likely true regarding any and every ruling of any court."
Again, as long as you don't "see" something then it mus either be wrong or of zero importance.
"He hasn't shown that he didn't mean it. Why would anyone think so?"
Well, the only state laws he's criticized are the pro-life examples. He's acknowledged that he is not even going to attempt anything on a national scale. But those couldn't possibly be reasons to doubt his.
'He's as pro-life as you are. Are you not pro-life because you allow for the same three exceptions to a ban as does he?"
No, my acknowledging that attempting to pass legislation with those three exceptions is worthwhile for two reasons 1. It'd eliminate 99% of abortions, 2. It'd expose the hypocrisy of the pro-choice position. Is not a strictly a pro-life position. I've never claimed that it was. It is a compromise that could theoretically move the ball down the field, but it's not necessarily a pro-life position. I've been clear that I see it as a political compromise that could have positive outcomes, and allow the fight to be more specific, but have never claimed that it was pro-life. I've always drawn a separation between my pro-life position (eliminate abortion), and political compromises that I could support as a means to an end.
As I said earlier, I could live with the 3 exceptions compromise, and that I could live with the all or nothing compromise. But that they were both compromises that will continue to allow legal abortions.
" He allows that states have the right to decide for themselves."
Yet, he's been critical of FL and AZ for doing exactly what he claims to support.
" He sees the pro-abort states as places where more work needs to be done."
Where has he ever said this specifically?
"I believe his objections to FL and AZ has more to do with the impact on the upcoming election and how Dems will exploit these states' laws to inflame the passions of pro-aborts."
Interesting. It's almost like Trump's public views on abortion are driven solely by electoral politics. As if waiting (and allowing more abortion) will magically stop the Dems from using it as an issue. As if ignoring it and kicking the can down the road is ever a good strategy.
"All I know is that he hasn't fully explained what he meant by his comments referencing those state laws and no one seems to give a flying f**k to ever ask him what he means."
Why hasn't he? Is he unaware of the controversy his comments have caused? Does he not care if people understand his positions? Why haven't you asked? Is he not responsible for making statements that are understandable?
" Why do you purposely conflate these two disparate things as if they're the same...which is dishonest?"
Because I can. Because his lack of clarity on the topic opens the door for it. Because he literally said that under his "states rights" view of the topic that any possible outcome is acceptable to him. Because he's not once, that I'm aware of, called out any states that have pro-abortion state laws as something that needs to be corrected.
"Again, thanks for proving you're cool with perverting what he's saying or doing. How very MSM of you."
No. I am "cool with" taking what he has said, acknowledging what he hasn't said, and drawing conclusions. Now, he certainly has the ability to communicate his views in a more expansive manner, does he not? Isn't it reasonable to take his refusal to do so, and draw conclusions from that silence.
"You suggest pandering, I'm suggesting walking the tightrope of political rhetoric."
A distinction without a difference. He's walking the tightrope between alienating all the pro-life voters that believed that his goal was a national ban on abortion, and picking up some voters that aren't full blown "any abortion, any time, any reason". He's doing so by pandering to the soft pro-choice voters. It's what politicians do, they pander to what they perceive as swing voters. I'm not even necessarily criticizing him, more pointing out that the pro-life voting bloc can be pretty militant about "compromise".
"However, if he's pandering for votes from the pro-aborts, I'm totally cool if he changes his mind in his lame duck term. We're talking about life here and I'm not concerned that those who care so little for it would be duped by such pandering."
What an interesting strategy. You're "totally cool" with trump lying to pro aborts to get elected, then totally throwing them under the bus. I've always valued honesty in political candidates, but I guess that's naive.
It's strange that you seem to be totally committed to a 100% total nationwide, federal ban on abortion as the only acceptable solution, yet support Trump who just said he's not interested in pursuing the solution you seem to be committed to.
Which kind of makes my point. This is less about Trump trying to incrementally soften his "pro-life" position to pick up a few swing votes (it he can do it it makes political and electoral sense), than it is about abolitionists and their willingness to hitch their single issue to a candidate who's told them that he's not going to push for what they want.
"Based on your subjectively interpreted comparisons between them. You can't offer "better than Biden" as some sort of catch all reason, without acknowledging how low that bar is."
That the bar is low with regard to Biden is neither here nor there. The fact is Trump performed better without any legitimate argument to the contrary. I maintain and am ready defend the same is true when compared to the other empty suit, Obama. The fact that he performed twice as good as Obama in half the time should have been as obvious even to Trump haters, but alas, I'm not supposed to identify morons as morons. F**k my grandchildren, right?
But again, the "better than Biden" is a given. Forget Biden. Pretend he didn't exist and just think of Obama, and then try to say that Obama in any way was better for American than was Trump. I'll wait here while you can't.
"My point exactly, as long as Trump is less than a cluster, you'll be happy and tout your support for him. "
How stupid. Trump has proven himself to the extent that he'll be better without barely trying. But unlike your desperate and false distortion of my position, I support Trump based on his great first term, not because Biden sucks as bad as he does. That Biden sucks as bad as he does should be what scares away those who were too stupid to give Trump a second term in 2020. Two separate arguments. You seem to think Trump wasn't all that good. You're wrong and haven't provided an intelligent argument to support that wacky premise.
"1. His own words literally demonstrate that you're wrong. He claimed to be pro-choice, then pro-life, now pro states deciding (which can be either, as he pointed out). He's been quite clear that his position is that he's fine with states that decide on a pro-abortion stance, while he's gone after states that have been explicitly pro-life. It's like saying Trump is pro-life, as long as pro-life is defined as Trump's current position."
I don't believe as president he's ever said he was pro-choice. I could be wrong, but I don't think so and I know you don't feel obliged to provide links for what you say. I feel certain he's been pro-choice as a matter of policy if not personal preference since he's been president and that's enough. If his actions are pro-life, if his position now is pro-life, I don't need to pretend that I must take what he might have said in the 1990s as indicative of his true belief in 2024. But you go ahead and feel free to believe that politicians aren't allowed to change their minds when it validates your hatred. That's so Dan.
Overturning Roe was the point of electing him, as his likely nominees for SCOTUS were believed to bring about that action. Now it's done and you want to give him crap for it because he stands by the outcome. In the meantime, while you whine about pro-life absolutists who didn't account for states who would allow worse abortion policies, you give Trump shit because he did. I'm impressed by your ability to contort.
"Well, if you don't "see" it then it must not exist. But thanks for making my point, I choose to hope that Trump will do better, not simply accept less than just because."
Given you say you speak well of him about good things he's done, I would expect to see that now and then on your own blog where you only speak to negatives. But then, after chiding me on the premise that I "hope" Trump will do better, you're pumping yourself up for the same. Such contortions gotta hurt the spine!
"What a strange notion. Expecting that the candidate and his campaign will put forth the effort to convince voters to vote for them based on specifics regarding policy. What a horrible expectation."
His track record is a manifestation of his policies. But my point was with regard to your response to nonsensical objections you find so compelling on X. You stated it's not up to you to correct stupidity in those you encounter. But if one gives a flying rat's ass about their own children, I can't see how leaving stupidity without a response is a good thing. I don't care how perfect the better man is. I damned well care enough about my children and grandchildren that the better man wins in November, and I'm having a hard time not regarding those who don't get with the program to be part of the problem with this nation.
Gotta go. Speaking what should be obvious to even marginally intelligent people is tiring...plus it's 4AM.
"That the bar is low with regard to Biden is neither here nor there."
Well, I guess you could ignore the fact that two recent presidents running against each other could happen without comparing their records is literally how most people decide. The reality is that Trump IS running against Biden, and if Trump could "improve" gas prices from $4.39 to $4.09, that would be an "improvement". If Trump added 10 barrels of oil to the strategic reserve, "improvement". If Trump lowered mortgage rates to 7.2%, that would be an "improvement". None of those "improvements" would significantly change things for anyone, but they would be "improvements".
The problem is, based on Trump supporters, Trump will fail if gas prices (for example) don't go back below $2/gal. But, how realistic is that?
The P-BO comparison seems like a stretch. Obviously anyone could cherry pick stats from past presidents and compare, but it's difficult to compare apples to apples. The problem is that P-BO isn't running, Biden is. That is the only comparison that matters in this election.
" You seem to think Trump wasn't all that good."
No, I think that Trump was good on some issues, bad on others. Like every other president in history.
"I don't believe as president he's ever said he was pro-choice."
1. Interesting goal post move.
2. If everything said before assuming office is off limits, then you'll need to dial back on the Biden criticisms.
"If his actions are pro-life, if his position now is pro-life, I don't need to pretend that I must take what he might have said in the 1990s as indicative of his true belief in 2024."
Interesting. This notion that you seem to support (while admitting that his personal convictions are likely pro-choice) Trump changing his public position (likely for political reasons) to get elected, is a good character trait. Therefore it's not surprising when he swings away from a "pro-life" position (abolition) in a move to broaden his political support with soft pro-choice voters.
"But you go ahead and feel free to believe that politicians aren't allowed to change their minds when it validates your hatred. That's so Dan."
1. You just acknowledged that he likely hasn't "changed his mind", but merely his public stance.
2. Again with the Dannish claims of "hatred".
3. The fact that you are defending Trump's "pro-life" credentials even as he's just said that he will not push for the pro-life goal of a total ban (which you say is the only real pro-life position), seems strange to me.
" Now it's done and you want to give him crap for it because he stands by the outcome."
You see, when you make shit up, it just doesn't make you look good. Maybe don't make shit up.
"In the meantime, while you whine about pro-life absolutists who didn't account for states who would allow worse abortion policies, you give Trump shit because he did."
1. I'm not "whining" about anything.
2. I AM pointing out that a strict insistence on total abolition IS a compromise that WILL allow thousands/millions of legal abortions until if finally (maybe) passes at some point in the unknown future. (Definitely not between '25-'29)
3. I AM pointing out that those who are strict abolitionists are confronted with a moral problem as Trump just told them that he will NOT push for abolition in a second term.
4. I've been clear that I (personally, politically, legally) agree that Trump's current position is the most appropriate right now.
5. I've been clear that I don't have a problem with him trying to broaden his voter base by shifting to the left on some issues. It might cost him, but not doing so also might cost him.
6. Pointing out the reality that Trump's current "position" is not strictly "pro-life" isn't "giving him shit", it's taking him at face value.
7. You're kicking ass on straw men, and made up shit though.
" But then, after chiding me on the premise that I "hope" Trump will do better, you're pumping yourself up for the same. Your position seems to be that "He'll (Trump) will be better", that doesn't sound like hope that sounds like certainty.
"His track record is a manifestation of his policies."
Then we should expect another term of record additions to the national debt? I thought his "policy" was to cut the budget, eliminate the deficit, and reduce the debt. Yet his record manifests the opposite.
"Gotta go. Speaking what should be obvious to even marginally intelligent people is tiring...plus it's 4AM."
If you're up at 4AM wasting time repeating yourself, you probably shouldn't blame anyone but yourself.
FROM ART, FROM ANOTHER POST.
This is a bit absurd. First of all, the dude doesn't really answer his own question. What he does is he makes any answer one might come up with OK. But the question alone is insufficient for any Christian who takes his faith seriously. I'll get to that later.
He does some condemnation here as well, which is a bit over the top given the circumstances. Trump's declared war on Jesus? WTF!!
Once again...Trump's as pro-life as you are. You both hold that there should be exceptions and the same exceptions. The only difference could be that while you allow those exceptions to reduce the number to near zero...assuming you actually believe pro-aborts can be convinced to accept such a deal...Trump may feel that those exceptions reflect a true conundrum for the mother and thus he, like many, would be willing to allow "choice" in those circumstances. That's not giving in to abortion supporters any more than you'd be, and I'd argue less so.
I don't know if Trump ever helped a girlfriend get an abortion. I wouldn't suggest that's anywhere outside the realm of possibility, given his womanizing ways. But neither of us is in a position whereby we can justly question his sincerity on the issue now. All we can do is take him at his word when he says he's pro-life. This should be quite easy for you given your penchant for using that excuse for buying a superficial understanding of things he's said which you regard as "stupid".
I've seen quite a few articles which appear to portray Trump as flip-flopping on the issue of life, but the following suggests a more linear..albeit with hiccups...path to his current position:
https://qz.com/1623437/trump-shifted-from-pro-choice-to-pro-life-as-he-planned-a-presidential-run
I'm not sure the intent was to honestly enlighten, but I think it does much to benefit Trump.
Sey dares to say, "Trump has betrayed pre-born babies, pro-life voters, and the Constitution." and then goes on to quote the 14th Amendment. This is my position in terms of the ultimate goal. But he no more betrayed any of those three than did Lincoln when he dealt with the slavery issue, and I think this is the major problem with criticisms of Trump on this issue:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/defending_trump_s_abortion_stance.html
This is a very similar situation and dynamic, with one caveat: Life. As I said, I think the issue is covered by the 14th Amendment, but for the time being, it's the 10th which rationalizes the Dobbs decision. The reason is because too many refuse to respect the humanity and "personhood" of the unborn. That's where the battle has truly been since Roe, and little has been done to truly get the pro-aborts to defend against the facts. The issue was brushed aside when Roe was decided, as if the intelligentsia of that time was totally confused as to the reality even back then.
Post a Comment