"If we're not willing to criticize Trump's pro-abortion stance, then we have no basis to criticize Kamala Harris' more radical stance."
Samuel Sey
This is my point exactly, if abortion is the serious wrong that the pro-life movement has always claimed it to be. If abortion is literally murder as some pro-lifers claim. Then how can we not criticize Trump for his move towards a stance that is more accepting of abortion? If all abortion is evil or murder, then how can we not criticize Trump's move away from a more explicit pro-life position?
This is not to say that we shouldn't or can't vote for Trump. This is not to say that Trump will be better on the life issue than Harris. This is to say that criticizing Trump on one issue is appropriate when his stance on that issue has moved away from his earlier stance. It's idiotic to conclude that one must uncritically support every position a politician holds, or that you can't vote for someone while criticizing one of their positions. Hell, I'd say that the criticism of Trump's abortion stance is constructive. It's intended to help him, not hurt him.
I firmly believe that Trump has never been pro-life in any meaningful sense. I also firmly believe that Trump has been the president with the most pro-life actions during his term since Ford. I care less about what he believes on this issue than what he does on this issue. The reality is that he did what he said he'd do, and he should be commended for that.
One choice is Trump, who seems like he's comfortable with the status quo on abortion. Comfortable with some states deciding to highly restrict abortion, and some allowing unlimited abortion. He's unlikely to sign any national abortion legislation, either a ban or to remove any limits. The other is Harris who seems more committed to removing any and all restrictions or limits on abortion above all else.
Between those two, the choice for a pro-life voter should be pretty simple. Even if it's not perfect, or even if it's not what it was in 2016. Not to mention the fact that Trump will be more conservative on almost every other policy. The DFL is the party where it's presidential candidates can't be criticized from within, the GOP used to be the party where criticism of the candidate on specific issues was allowed. Let's not let the GOP take this lesson from the DFL.
2 comments:
I've been clear that I disliked removing pro-life posturing from the platform, though it's not truly and totally removed. It's just not as explicit. That's because of the Dobbs decision. But I don't think it's at all fair to suggest Trump is pro-abortion simply because he's rolling with the current situation, which is what most pro-lifers have been begging for since 1973. It's unfair to criticize him for now acting in accordance with the ruling everyone demanded for 51 years. Anything he might say now that so much as hints at doing more on a federal level to restrict or limit abortion will only incite the assholes who've made abortion "rights" their single issue.
But I agree his best move is to say as little as possible on the issue given the stupidity of so many on both sides.
I don't think him acting in accordance with the repeal of Roe is what has people upset. It's his recent comments that indicate his increasing openness to abortion that are the problem.
If he simply stuck with some version of "Abortion is now an issue to be decided legislatively at the state level, I see no reason for the federal government to be involved." or "Abortion should be decided legislatively and in the absence of specific legislation, I see no reason to speculate.". No one would object.
I'll simply note that the quote with which I began this post, is both insightful and accurate. If one is a pro-life abolitionist (which I thought you were) then any politician who opens the door to more abortions should be fair game for criticism. It's also fair to note that Trump's new abortion stance would be less bad than Harris.
Post a Comment