Is Donald Trump Pro-Life? Evidence Against It

[Moneyball]

For me…Abortion takes a back seat to immigration and our economy.

I will vote for a candidate that claims to be pro-life and leave it at that. I’m far, far more concerned about my country being completely taken over by illegal and legal immigrants who drive down our economy and steal jobs.

Rubio and Cruz have made it crystal clear that they do not care about immigration…especially Rubio.

No way would I vote for either of them because of that alone.

Trump was pro immigration and in favour of brining Syrian refugees until he realized he could get more votes if he changed his views on those issues… the guy will say and do anything to get votes. Not that it actually matters since a vote for him is ultimately a vote for Clinton.

 

[dmar198]

For me…Abortion takes a back seat to immigration and our economy.

Why?

I’m far, far more concerned about my country being completely taken over by illegal and legal immigrants who drive down our economy and steal jobs.

I was talking to my friend “Jim” about immigrants stealing jobs recently. I asked him how they do that. He said they do it by applying for jobs like picking berries, and they get hired instead of American applicants. I asked why businesses hire immigrants rather than Americans, and he said Americans don’t apply for jobs like picking berries.

If that is true, then I don’t think the immigrants are really stealing jobs. I think a job can only count as stolen if an American wanted the job but an immigrant got it instead. The only reason I can imagine that happening is if the immigrants offer to work for cheaper than the minimum wage. If that is what’s happening, then it seems like the businesses who hire them are breaking the law: they are paying people under the minimum wage. They should be arrested, not the immigrants. But if it’s simply a case where immigrants accept jobs that Americans don’t want, then I don’t think that’s job theft. What do you think?

 

[Tablefor9]

Why? I was talking to my friend “Jim” about immigrants stealing jobs recently. I asked him how they do that. He said they do it by applying for jobs like picking berries, and they get hired instead of American applicants. I asked why businesses hire immigrants rather than Americans, and he said Americans don’t apply for jobs like picking berries.

If that is true, then I don’t think the immigrants are really stealing jobs. I think a job can only count as stolen if an American wanted the job but an immigrant got it instead. The only reason I can imagine that happening is if the immigrants offer to work for cheaper than the minimum wage. If that is what’s happening, then it seems like the businesses who hire them are breaking the law: they are paying people under the minimum wage. They should be arrested, not the immigrants. But if it’s simply a case where immigrants accept jobs that Americans don’t want, then I don’t think that’s job theft. What do you think?

:clapping:

 

[Tim_D]

Why? I was talking to my friend “Jim” about immigrants stealing jobs recently. I asked him how they do that. He said they do it by applying for jobs like picking berries, and they get hired instead of American applicants. I asked why businesses hire immigrants rather than Americans, and he said Americans don’t apply for jobs like picking berries.

If that is true, then I don’t think the immigrants are really stealing jobs. I think a job can only count as stolen if an American wanted the job but an immigrant got it instead. The only reason I can imagine that happening is if the immigrants offer to work for cheaper than the minimum wage. If that is what’s happening, then it seems like the businesses who hire them are breaking the law: they are paying people under the minimum wage. They should be arrested, not the immigrants. But if it’s simply a case where immigrants accept jobs that Americans don’t want, then I don’t think that’s job theft. What do you think?

This is a very simplistic explanation. A better example would be the housing industry before the burst of the bubble back in 2007/8. Contractors would hire illegals to build houses because they could get them for less than local workers and did not have to pay benefits or any of the other expenses that legal workers are entitled. The contractors made more money by lessening expenses through an illicit practice.

The reason why you find them in agriculture so much is because growers would rather exploit cheap labor instead of modernizing their business. There are all kinds of machines that can do the work but they are expensive. The whole “they do jobs Americans don’t want” is nonsense. Cheap labor is a boon to certain areas of industry. If they paid decent wages for these jobs, there would be plenty of people lined up for them.

 

[chero23]

I had to read more detailed last night about roe v wade.

But I read about the justices. 7 of those in the SC had been nominated by republican presidents. Only 2 by democrats. of the 7 that supported the measure, 6 were had been appointed by a republican and 1 by the democrat.

I don’t think this is just a liberal thing folks. We can say the SC felt pressured. But we’ve had republican presidents since then, more notably Reagan, and Bush 41& 43. They’ve had opportunities to do something and haven’t.

 

[Tim_D]

To get cases before the supreme court will take legislation and litigation … like when the republicans passed the Infants Born Alive Act in 2002 & the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 - both of which were signed into law by a Republican President, The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2007 … Good luck getting any laws reducing abortion with a Pro-Abortion Clinton or Sanders sitting in the Oval Office … any legislation would suffer the fate of the 1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - which passed again by republicans was vetoed by Bill Clinton …

People always say - see the republicans have not stopped abortions - it doesn’t matter … but the reality is - it does matter … it matters in that the chance of getting a pro-life justice on the court - while not assured - is far more likely with a republican in office than a Pro-Abortion democrat … It matters because without a republican President pro-life laws will not be signed into law - even if there are pro-life majorities in both the House and Senate …

And its a fact that reublicans placed their political careers on the line in both 1995 and 2003 in order to push through a bill that should not even be necessary in this country - to STOP the dismemberment of innocent children in the womb inorder to extract them …

You can throw stones at republicans …But can you name any one piece of pro-life legislation passed by the democrats or signed by a democratic president? Just one … I am patient - I will wait while you search … How does your Catholic Christian Heart beat with great pride, love and passion when you read the Democratic Party Platform on Abortion … I hear you say “You go Dems! Yeah Team! … Feel the Bern little babies as you are ripped from the womb!!! … and - Yes - Hillary is advocating for all women … just not you little unborn girl … but if you are lucky enough to make it …Hil has your back”

Your post is an excellent example of why the nomination process of the Supreme Court has been completely bastardized for the past 20+ years. In the past, a president would nominate someone based upon their experience and their record. Congress would vote for or against based on that.

Today, it is all about ideology. It doesn’t matter what a nominee has decided in past cases just as long as he/she supports the things that I support now. In the past, a litmus test was completely contrary to the qualifications of a candidate. Today, it is all that matters.

Just remember that if your candidate can happen to stack the court with people who vote the way that you want them to, then the other side can (and apparently has the right) to do the exact same thing. Is a court of law supposed to continuously revisit past law until they decide what a certain group wants them to decide? It isn’t supposed to work like that. Look at John Roberts. Those on the right were ecstatic when he became a member of the court. Now, they have declared him a traitor because he didn’t decide cases conservatively the way they think that he should. What is more important to you; having a supposedly impartial court deciding cases based on the law, the Constitution and the merits of the case or simply “getting a pro-life justice on the court?” That’s like saying that you would prefer a doctor who was inept in every other aspect of medicine just as long as he is pro-life.

 

[Tim_D]

I had to read more detailed last night about roe v wade.

But I read about the justices. 7 of those in the SC had been nominated by republican presidents. Only 2 by democrats. of the 7 that supported the measure, 6 were had been appointed by a republican and 1 by the democrat.

I don’t think this is just a liberal thing folks. We can say the SC felt pressured. But we’ve had republican presidents since then, more notably Reagan, and Bush 41& 43. They’ve had opportunities to do something and haven’t.

This is a good point. Can it be that instead of simply trying to impose personal beliefs and opinions on the nation through personal fiat, the court is deciding cases based on their understanding of the Constitution and the law?

How many people, after losing a court case, are magnanimous enough to say “yeah, I was legally wrong…it was a good decision?” None. Everyone thinks things should be the way they think they should. Politics has always been a dirty game. One only need to read about the Graucchus Brothers to see had the game is played.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

 

[randomuser]

True…but it’s up to the president and the house to decide who actually makes that decision.

We either find someone who will pick a Supreme Court Justice like Scalia or hand it to the Dems…like Obama or Hillary and watch them pick another “winner” like the last two gems he graced our court system with.

Trump thinks Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization – “except for abortion.” Can a supposedly ‘pro-life’ leader who thinks PP is a wonderful organization – “except for abortion” – be trusted to pick Scalia’s replacement particularly when that replacement shares Trump’s view that PP is a wonderful organization “except for abortion”? I don’t think so.

I have a difficult time comprehending how someone can be “pro-life” - and - praise PP.

 

[mattp0625]

It’s better then Clinton’s modern Methodist position.

Perhaps he wants exceptions or perhaps he doesn’t. I do know he generally defends Christianity. Most politicians dodge the issue.

Perhaps Trump’s position is not as polar as folks are painting.

 

[Tim_D]

It’s better then Clinton’s modern Methodist position.

Perhaps he wants exceptions or perhaps he doesn’t. I do know he generally defends Christianity. Most politicians dodge the issue.

Perhaps Trump’s position is not as polar as folks are painting.

You make a great point. Since Trump’s position is not exactly what some folks want, then he must be on the “other side.”

George Bush was opposed to abortion on demand but since he allowed for the rape/incest exceptions, many Catholics labeled him “pro choice.” It is not only disingenuous but it further widens the divide.

 

[kozlosap]

Trump thinks Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization – “except for abortion.” Can a supposedly ‘pro-life’ leader who thinks PP is a wonderful organization – “except for abortion” – be trusted to pick Scalia’s replacement particularly when that replacement shares Trump’s view that PP is a wonderful organization “except for abortion”? I don’t think so.

I have a difficult time comprehending how someone can be “pro-life” - and - praise PP.

, as hard as this is to write, I agree with The Donald on this one. Many of my ex students, from a very depressed area, had their first gynecological exam at PP. I have absolutely no qualms about PP prescribing oral ABC, the new IUD’s, or the long acting shots. In a addition, they also help women who have caught an STD.

 

[YADA]

I had to read more detailed last night about roe v wade.

But I read about the justices. 7 of those in the SC had been nominated by republican presidents. Only 2 by democrats. of the 7 that supported the measure, 6 were had been appointed by a republican and 1 by the democrat.

I don’t think this is just a liberal thing folks. We can say the SC felt pressured. But we’ve had republican presidents since then, more notably Reagan, and Bush 41& 43. They’ve had opportunities to do something and haven’t.

You say the Republicans do not do anything - and yet … it was the republicans who passed the 1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - which was vetoed by Bill Clinton.

The republicans passed the Infants Born Alive Act in 2002 & the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 - both of which were signed into law by a Republican President.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2007 … Good luck getting any laws that will even reduce abortion - let alone abolish it with a Pro-Abortion Clinton or Sanders sitting in the Oval Office … Any and all legislation would suffer the fate of the of the 1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban … A BIG VETOE …

People always say - see the republicans have not stopped abortions - so then it doesn’t matter … but the reality is -** it does matter **… it matters in that the chance of getting a pro-life justice on the court - while not assured - is far more likely with a Republican in office than a Pro-Abortion Democrat …The Democratic Platform is PRO-ABORTION - radically so.

It matters because without a Republican President pro-life laws will not be signed into law - even if there are pro-life majorities in both the House and Senate …

Its a fact that the Republicans in placed their political careers on the line in 1995. 2002 and 2003 in order to push through a bill that I argue should not even be necessary in this country where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are Fundamental Rights- to STOP the dismemberment of innocent children in the womb in order to extract them and end their lives … and a Democratic President Vetoed that law

You can throw stones at Republicans …I will ask again - Can you name any one piece of pro-life legislation passed by the Democrats or signed by a Democratic president?

Just one … I am patient - I will wait while you search …

How does your Catholic Christian Heart beat with great pride, love and passion when you read the Democratic Party Platform on Abortion? …

Remember a vote for the Democrat whether Sanders or Clinton is a vote for Abortion
The Democratic Mantra “You go Team Dems! Abortion Now, Abortion Always” … their platform says it all.

 

[YADA]

Your post is an excellent example of why the nomination process of the Supreme Court has been completely bastardized for the past 20+ years. In the past, a president would nominate someone based upon their experience and their record. Congress would vote for or against based on that.

Today, it is all about ideology. It doesn’t matter what a nominee has decided in past cases just as long as he/she supports the things that I support now. In the past, a litmus test was completely contrary to the qualifications of a candidate. Today, it is all that matters.

Just remember that if your candidate can happen to stack the court with people who vote the way that you want them to, then the other side can (and apparently has the right) to do the exact same thing. Is a court of law supposed to continuously revisit past law until they decide what a certain group wants them to decide? It isn’t supposed to work like that. Look at John Roberts. Those on the right were ecstatic when he became a member of the court. Now, they have declared him a traitor because he didn’t decide cases conservatively the way they think that he should. What is more important to you; having a supposedly impartial court deciding cases based on the law, the Constitution and the merits of the case or simply “getting a pro-life justice on the court?” That’s like saying that you would prefer a doctor who was inept in every other aspect of medicine just as long as he is pro-life.

And you have politicized the murder of babies … our country was founded on the principal of fundamental rights - LIFE being one … a very bad decision found a [non-existent] right to privacy in the Constitution that made murder of children acceptable … I do not want to ‘stack’ the court - I want a court that recognizes murder for what it is …

Elections matter … and a court that can find a right to murder children can find a right to murder just about any defenseless class of people … the infirm and elderly …

Planned Parenthood was founded on racist eugenic ideals by a racist [Sanger] - by their fruits you will know them - the Democratic party has bought that swill - and codified it in their party platform … not my words - bit theirs - freely chosen

 

[YADA]

This is a good point. Can it be that instead of simply trying to impose personal beliefs and opinions on the nation through personal fiat, the court is deciding cases based on their understanding of the Constitution and the law?

How many people, after losing a court case, are magnanimous enough to say “yeah, I was legally wrong…it was a good decision?” None. Everyone thinks things should be the way they think they should. Politics has always been a dirty game. One only need to read about the Graucchus Brothers to see had the game is played.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

Sure … We celebrate those wonderful Supreme Court Decisions like Dred Scott v Stanford [a 7 to 2 verdict so obviously a great decision] and Plessy v Ferguson [a 7 to 1 verdict too so it must have been a very great decision]

I am sure the losers of those decisions said … hey we were wrong and the court got it right …

 

[chero23]

You say the Republicans do not do anything - and yet … it was the republicans who passed the 1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban - which was vetoed by Bill Clinton.

The republicans passed the Infants Born Alive Act in 2002 & the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 - both of which were signed into law by a Republican President.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2007 … Good luck getting any laws that will even reduce abortion - let alone abolish it with a Pro-Abortion Clinton or Sanders sitting in the Oval Office … Any and all legislation would suffer the fate of the of the 1995 Partial Birth Abortion Ban … A BIG VETOE …

People always say - see the republicans have not stopped abortions - so then it doesn’t matter … but the reality is -** it does matter **… it matters in that the chance of getting a pro-life justice on the court - while not assured - is far more likely with a Republican in office than a Pro-Abortion Democrat …The Democratic Platform is PRO-ABORTION - radically so.

It matters because without a Republican President pro-life laws will not be signed into law - even if there are pro-life majorities in both the House and Senate …

Its a fact that the Republicans in placed their political careers on the line in 1995. 2002 and 2003 in order to push through a bill that I argue should not even be necessary in this country where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are Fundamental Rights- to STOP the dismemberment of innocent children in the womb in order to extract them and end their lives … and a Democratic President Vetoed that law

You can throw stones at Republicans …I will ask again - Can you name any one piece of pro-life legislation passed by the Democrats or signed by a Democratic president?

Just one … I am patient - I will wait while you search …

How does your Catholic Christian Heart beat with great pride, love and passion when you read the Democratic Party Platform on Abortion? …

Remember a vote for the Democrat whether Sanders or Clinton is a vote for Abortion
The Democratic Mantra “You go Team Dems! Abortion Now, Abortion Always” … their platform says it all.

So if I voted for a democrat that means I support their stance on everything?

So I’m guessing that whoever you vote for you support 100% even if it goes against Catholic values?

I’m not saying that the democratic platform is innocent, but I am saying the republicans especially those in the SC in 73 are to blame. First you have to clean in house before you point the finger.

 

[Tim_D]

And you have politicized the murder of babies … our country was founded on the principal of fundamental rights - LIFE being one … a very bad decision found a [non-existent] right to privacy in the Constitution that made murder of children acceptable … I do not want to ‘stack’ the court - I want a court that recognizes murder for what it is …

Elections matter … and a court that can find a right to murder children can find a right to murder just about any defenseless class of people … the infirm and elderly …

And you have allowed your passions and emotions to run amok.

And you most certainly want to stack the court to meet your agenda. Our country was founded on the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those qualities were not applied to those people who were in a state of involuntary bondage pre 1865. In the same way, we cannot presume that the word “life” was designated as meaning in 1789 what we, in a post Roe v. Wade world, forcibly try to apply it today. I’m sure that the meaning of “pursuit of happiness” does not mean to you the ability for two people of the same sex to be legally married, either. Depending on one’s political philosophy, be it conservative, liberal or libertarian, three people can approach the same legal principal and arrive at three completely different conclusions. The litmus tests that we have seen applied to supreme court nominees over the past 20 years has been a very destructive act in regards to the judiciary of this country. The answer does not lie in using our own litmus test but transcending party politics for objective suitability and we will never arrive at that as long as we trumpet the banner of one party over another.

 

[Tim_D]

Sure … We celebrate those wonderful Supreme Court Decisions like Dred Scott v Stanford [a 7 to 2 verdict so obviously a great decision] and Plessy v Ferguson [a 7 to 1 verdict too so it must have been a very great decision]

I am sure the losers of those decisions said … hey we were wrong and the court got it right …

It as an unimpeachable characteristic of the human condition to brood over a decision that does not go one’s way.

Your position is one of a student who takes a test and is furious because the teacher doesn’t recognize what the student feels is self-evident genius.

Just because you believe Justice and Truth point in a certain direction doesn’t mean that it is so. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

 

[YADA]

And you have allowed your passions and emotions to run amok.

And you most certainly want to stack the court to meet your agenda. Our country was founded on the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those qualities were not applied to those people who were in a state of involuntary bondage pre 1865. In the same way, we cannot presume that the word “life” was designated as meaning in 1789 what we, in a post Roe v. Wade world, forcibly try to apply it today. I’m sure that the meaning of “pursuit of happiness” does not mean to you the ability for two people of the same sex to be legally married, either. Depending on one’s political philosophy, be it conservative, liberal or libertarian, three people can approach the same legal principal and arrive at three completely different conclusions. The litmus tests that we have seen applied to supreme court nominees over the past 20 years has been a very destructive act in regards to the judiciary of this country. The answer does not lie in using our own litmus test but transcending party politics for objective suitability and we will never arrive at that as long as we trumpet the banner of one party over another.

As a Christian - the killing of babies in the womb is a moral absolute evil. I do not support the redefinition of marriage [one man - one woman] - however, civil unions are a totally different ball game … and I do believe we could and should provide civil protections for people in gay relationships - just as we should for heterosexual persons who co-habitate and have children …wills, rights for medical decision making, etc … even the two income one household “marriage penalty” in paying taxes

We legislate morality - thats a fact … and murder is wrong whether you are in the womb or not … Abortion is Intrinsically evil - or as a Christian - do you believe that some babies deserve to be deprived of their life?

As for party Banners … only one party has a banner that advocates the killing the voiceless innocent unborn … hummm which party is that again?? …

You forgot to say if you are still celebrating those two supreme court decisions - since according to your position - supreme court decisions are always correct and the losers should see the error of their ways - right?

 

[YADA]

It as an unimpeachable characteristic of the human condition to brood over a decision that does not go one’s way.

Your position is one of a student who takes a test and is furious because the teacher doesn’t recognize what the student feels is self-evident genius.

Just because you believe Justice and Truth point in a certain direction doesn’t mean that it is so. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Sadly, you sound like many men I know who have encouraged the women in their life to seek the easy way out in order to avoid responsibility for unplanned pregnancies … Abortion kills children and harms the mothers. It does not serve society and many men are hurt as well… I am very sad for you. Evil is still evil even if all of society celebrates it, normalizes it and condones it in law.

Thus Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton which codified in law the killing of children from conception to the point of birth were morally correct decisions in your opinion and you support the killing of children … wow you are a pro abortion Catholic …

 

[dmar198]

This is a very simplistic explanation. A better example would be the housing industry before the burst of the bubble back in 2007/8. Contractors would hire illegals to build houses because they could get them for less than local workers and did not have to pay benefits or any of the other expenses that legal workers are entitled. The contractors made more money by lessening expenses through an illicit practice.

Thank you for this example, I think it is more specific and helpful. It sounds like the contractors were breaking the law wherever they paid workers less than what the law required. Do you know what the punishment for that is? They must have thought it was worth it. Maybe we should punish employers more when they underpay employees, and keep upping the punishment until they it’s worth it to them to pay their workers what they are owed. What do you think?

The reason why you find [immigrants] in agriculture so much is because growers would rather exploit cheap labor instead of modernizing their business. There are all kinds of machines that can do the work but they are expensive. The whole “they do jobs Americans don’t want” is nonsense. Cheap labor is a boon to certain areas of industry. If they paid decent wages for these jobs, there would be plenty of people lined up for them.

I’m not sure if I follow your argument here. Are these cheap labor jobs offered to Americans? It is my understanding that they are, but immigrants end up applying for them in larger numbers. To me, that sounds like most Americans just don’t want to do these cheap labor jobs, and proportionally more immigrants are willing to do them. What do you think?

Thus Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton which codified in law the killing of children from conception to the point of birth were morally correct decisions in your opinion and you support the killing of children … wow you are a pro abortion Catholic …

I think you misunderstood Tim_D, I believe he is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade through constitutionalist judges and banning abortion.

you most certainly want to stack the court to meet your agenda. … The litmus tests that we have seen applied to supreme court nominees over the past 20 years has been a very destructive act in regards to the judiciary of this country. The answer does not lie in using our own litmus test but transcending party politics for objective suitability and we will never arrive at that as long as we trumpet the banner of one party over another.

I partly appreciate what you are saying about transcendence here, Tim, but in another sense I think your standards are a kind of litmus test too. A few posts ago you were saying, if I understood you correctly, that judges should base their decisions on the letter of the Constitution and the merits of the case. That seems like a litmus test to me. I think they should additionally base their decisions on the moral law as taught by several sources, which can be variously named depending on who we are are talking to: the Catholic Church, the Bible, Tradition, the Catechism, social doctrine…they all teach the same morals, morals which I think are transcendent and the ultimate source of all law. I think the Supreme Court should go by that above all else.