Is President Trump pro-life/pro-choice

[Maximian]

I think that’s a fair answer.

Im not an American. It is my impression that in reality, you don’t elect a President, you elect a whole team of which he is the front. Therefore it is not really meaningful to examine the personal convictions of the individual, but rather that of the President and his advisers as a group

 

[VonDerTann]

Max, that’s a fascinating non-American take. Thanks.

A whole team? I never thought about that. I would posit that the presidential elections are really a referendum on republicans vs. democrat. Each nationwide party has a platform that their candidates are expected to support, with some variations. For example, dems nationwide have a pro-abortion platform, hence why all current presidential candidates for the dem nomination adhere to that view.

 

[TheLittleLady]

wants to control all the government, I can only ask, isn’t that what he’s elected to do?

No, he us elected to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Our government consists of three branches, the President heads the Executive Branch. His powers are limited by the Constitution to protect our Republic.

 

[VonDerTann]

Littlelady, I have no doubt that Trump believes - as hopefully do all elected leaders - that they fulfill their mandate by acting as they see fit, as it pertains to judicial nominations.

Federal judges are nominated/appointed by the president with the advice & consent of the senate. The voters elect a president knowing that one of the presidents duties is to appoint judges. Of course he is going to appoint judges who share his worldview.

Do you really think any president is going to, or is supposed to, nominate judges who oppose him?

 

[TheLittleLady]

wants to control all the government, I can only ask, isn’t that what he’s elected to do?

Thing is, you put forth that the POTUS is elected to “control all the government”.

My response was to that one, you post was not about judges, neither was mine.

 

[VonDerTann]

We’ll, I can’t necessarily agree that he wants to control the legislative branch, because he has no real way to do that.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Again, seeking to control either other branch would be against the Constitution. Nominating Judges is not the same as controlling the Judicial branch, it is step one then moves to the Legislative branch for approval by our elected representatives.

 

[VonDerTann]

I don’t think nominating judges can really be termed “controlling the judicial branch,” so perhaps we’re not really disagreeing.

What i do think is controlling the judicial branch, is the democrats threatening to pack the Supreme Court with many democratic justices if they get the
Chance. That’s “controlling the judiciary.”

 

[Horton]

I don’t recommend books I’ve not read, that would be ludicrous.

Now you’re trying to change the conversation. You didn’t claim nor did I claim you recommended the book. It appeared from your statement that you said Judge Kavanaugh called the book brilliant. I believe you wanted to show President Trump’s picks as judges weren’t as pro-life as everyone claims. However, it backfired because you assumed the topic of Judge Gorsuch’s book was about supporting euthanasia.

So find the other “proof” President Trump is not pro-life.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Again I disagree. Most US residents were honest, perhaps especially Lincoln, Truman and Carter.

I’m talking about the candidates now not 40 or even two centuries ago.

 

[NoelFitz]

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

Thanks.
As I understand it the legislature and the judiciary should be independent of the executive. That is the strength of the US - checks and balances.

 

[NoelFitz]

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 suppose the answer is the coming of the kingdom.We agree definitions are important as I have stressed.

 

[NoelFitz]

I think all presidents, prior to Trump, were basically honorable men and the world could believe in the integrity of the US. None of us are perfect and we all need God’s mercy, but even President Clinton kept his promise to his wife, and they stuck together in good times and bad, for better or for worse. As a Catholic I believe in keeping marriage promises.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Rash judgement of my comments does not change them.

The currently elected Supreme Court Justices appointed by President Trump have not stated they will rule to overturn Roe or Doe v Bolton.

I think one of the biggest issues is no one defines “Pro Life”. In order to discuss reasonably, people must define their terms. I define Pro Life as did St John Paul II when he quoted from VII documents in Evangelium Vitae:

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator”.5

That is my definition of Pro Live, from a pizza delivery guy to Supreme Court Judges, Presidents, Queens or the mechanic who works on my car.

How do you define “Pro Life”?

 

[BT3241]

What ever cause will get him the most votes I don’t think he cares.

 

[DeniseNY]

Donald Trump is so wishy-washy, who knows where he stands on any issue any given day.
He looks at polls and follows suit.
For most of his life, he was pro-choice, but in more recent years he had reversed course because you can’t get anywhere in the Republican Party as a pro-choice advocate.
I think he would do anything or say anything to stay in office.

In other words, his just like most every other politician out there?

 

[DeniseNY]

No, he us elected to " faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Our government consists of three branches, the President heads the Executive Branch. His powers are limited by the Constitution to protect our Republic.

Exactly. Checks and balances.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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 suppose the answer is the coming of the kingdom.We agree definitions are important as I have stressed.

The Kingdom will be brought about by Christ, not globalist leftists.

In the meantime, your incapacity to finely define the end goal of your “progressivism” but are content to gesture towards “the Kingdom” amounts to no actual assurance that the two are even close to each other.

A key problem with equating the fullness of the “grace of God” to the endowment of power on earth into the hands of a ruling elite is that we must assume grace=power. That is completely contrary to the Gospel message that the first in the Kingdom of God will be the least (the servants) on earth.

I would guess that those who are pushing to consolidate their global power and wealth (crony socialists) will be the least in the Kingdom.

Revelation 6 quite clearly states how the “the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free,” will respond to the Second Coming.

12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

Whereas the…

…the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” 11 They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed.

 

[Horton]

How do you define “Pro Life”?

For the context of this conversation, Is President Trump pro-life/pro-choice, is President Trump working to end rampart use and funding of abortion at whim, then yes he is Pro-Life. Is he Pro-Life in the context that Catholics are, no, not yet.

He nominated two judges who are conservative in their judgments, follow the law, and most importantly follow the constitution. I don’t know if you are familiar with how the SC actually works but judges proclaiming their opinions on matters (especially matters such as Roe v. Wade) does not a good SC judge make.

I realize you are Anti-Trump in all things, but to deny he is not taking actions to further the cause of the Pro-Life movement is illogical, whatever you believe his motives to be.

 

[SirNotSoHandsome]

To be honest, I dont think women should be forced to have a child out of Rape, Incest or other assaults! If they want to have the child, great! But if they dont want to have it, then they shouldnt have to! The woman is already traumatized enough, does she have to worry about having a child too?!