Is President Trump pro-life/pro-choice

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are always folks who will say someone’s “not prolife enough.” Heck there are some evil people who advocate violence against abortionists and their property. To them, basically this whole board wouldn’t be prolife “enough.”

The original question was whether Trump is prolife. He is, and I would further posit - for reasons stated above - that his being prolife is not subject to reasonable doubt.
 
metis1, I’d be curious to know exactly what he said. All the Supreme Court can really do is return to the states the ability for them to individually decide whether to restrict or end abortion.
 
The sources you used above are highly questionable as far as being objective & truthful. If Kavanaugh would have given a firm yes or no answer his ability to be objective if a case came before SC regarding Roe v Wade would have been hindered.

The SC just can’t over turn Roe v Wade, a case has to be brought before them to be ruled on.

I watched both clips and saw nothing concerning at all. Both judges were correct in their answers.
TheLittleLady said:
Mr Gorsuch: I recommend his scholarly book on euthanasia. Brilliant.
Click to expand...
Do you know what this book is about?
Gorsuch’s core argument in the book is that the US should “retain existing law [banning assisted suicide and euthanasia] on the basis that human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." The “private persons” bit there is telling — Gorsuch elaborates, “I do not seek to address publicly authorized forms of killing like capital punishment and war.”
Click to expand...
 
I have come to the point that I will no longer cast stones at, or votes for Donald Trump.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
steve-b:
All his judges he has appointed so far are all pro life judges
Click to expand...
This is stated many times.

I’m working through the statements of all the judges, here are the top two:

B Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh asked about email disputing Roe v. Wade as settled law - YouTube

Do you have a direct statement from Judge Kavanaugh that he will overturn RvW or any settled law wrt abortion? This answer went in circles and never gave a yes or no answer. It seems he used Mr Gorsuch’s statement to frame his own.

Mr Gorsuch: I recommend his scholarly book on euthanasia. Brilliant.

Senators Question Gorsuch on Roe v. Wade - YouTube

Interesting quotes in Mother Jones from Phyllis Schlafly:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/anti-abortion-activists-reject-trump-high-court-picks/

Working on the rest.
Click to expand...
March 4, is when the U.S. Supreme Court hears its first major abortion case since the addition of two justices appointed by President Donald Trump.

That’s merely a few says away. We’ll see what happens.
 
Last edited:
Here:
Roberts has been very guarded in the public record in his statements about abortion. During his Senate hearings, his stock answer was that Roe v. Wade was settled law and that he had a healthy respect for establishment precedents.

“Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness,” he said then. “It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.”… — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s views on abortion, explained - Vox
 
No Honest judge will ever state how he/she will decide a case that hasn’t been brought yet. Any judge that does is admitting to being corrupt.
 
I don’t recommend books I’ve not read, that would be ludicrous.

Bought and read the book before his nomination process. As I said, it shows a brilliant legal mind.
 
Metis1, roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush, not by Trump
 
Metis1 said:
Here:
Roberts has been very guarded in the public record in his statements about abortion. During his Senate hearings, his stock answer was that Roe v. Wade was settled law and that he had a healthy respect for establishment precedents.

“Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness,” he said then. “It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.”… — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s views on abortion, explained - Vox
Click to expand...
The Supreme CT can’t legislate law. Yet THAT is what the SC did in 73 when they decided RoeVWade
 
He is a deceitful, un-Christian human being who ran for President because he could. The office is just an excuse to play with power, play games, and do and say whatever he wants. He will never be pro-life; every life to him is just something to manipulate. May he answer for the atrocities he has committed and the aspects of our government and Constitution that he has seeked to destroy. This is the honest truth.
 
NoelFitz said:
I had thought CAF was almost totally dominated by white conservative, mainly male, Catholics, but this thread has shown that there are also progressive forward-looking contributors, who seem to be faithful Catholics. Thank God.
Click to expand...
Could you define the ineffable goal or end that those “forward-looking” and “progressive” contributors, that you have acknowledged, are progressing towards or looking forward to?

I mean we can only define progress towards something by that “something” that we are progressing towards, no? Otherwise how would we know or be able to measure our progress towards it?

Every politician who lauds “progress,” that I have heard, has some undefinable quality as the end point – they never define the end or goal but always seem to insist that progress is the thing we all ought to buy into.

So what, exactly, are we progressing towards in your estimation? A clear definition would be helpful.
 
Attempts to pack the Supreme Court with judges favoring one’s political views will not work as, I believe, happened to Roosevelt, This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court - HISTORY

In general the judges have been persons learned in the law and people of integrity. The US system of checks and balances worked in the past and I hope it still will, in spite of Trump trying to control all three (Executive, Legislative, Judicial).
As we are ending this thread, which I started, I pray
God Bless America.
 
I have real problems with any post that calls a person, who the poster does not know personally, “un-Christian,” to say nothing of the other unkind invective.

We’re all unchristian sometimes. The fact this diatribe gets put forth agains arguably the most prolife president on decades (certainly since roe) bespeaks a great deal about who we are.
 
This thread has run its course. It’s. O longer “is Trump pro life,” so much as it’s become “is he pro life enough, in my subjective opinion?” Alternatively, what I see is people who, while knowing he’s pro life, appear to dislike him for other reasons - so they tell (falsely) themselves he’s not Pro life.
 
Noel, you make some good points, but, even if you’re correct that trump wants to control all the government, I can only ask, isn’t that what he’s elected to do? Of course it is, and that how it should be: People who vote for trump do so because the want him to appoint judges with similar views, not different views.
 
I find this is a bit like criticising LiveAid for raising money in order to look hip. The starving don’t care why they are being fed, just as the babies saved from abortion don’t care if their lives were saved to win votes.
 
Fine, but if Mengistu stole the money that was hardly due to the motives - good or bad - of the singers who raised the money.
 
Maximian said:
Fine, but if Mengistu stole the money that was hardly due to the motives - good or bad - of the singers who raised the money.
Click to expand...
Someones pockets were lined and they got popularity… but the victims got nothing.

That’s why there are those of us who want to see measures that impact the underlying culture of death as the means to bring about real change. As you read, Live Aid made it possible for Mengistu to destroy the Eritrean freedom fighters. It did more harm than good in the end.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top