President Trump's pro-life proclamation

Status
Not open for further replies.
If anyone here has actually read scripture, God has used some pretty bad people to do his will. Pharaoh, King of Babylon, Judas, Peter, many Saints who you wouldn’t want to live next door to. Trump is a narcissist and an oligarch who is doing all the right things for the pro-life movement. Personally, I think he I doing it do make liberal neck veins pop. He is doing the right thing and he doesn’t care what anyone thinks about it. Thank you Mr. President for standing up for the un-born.
Friend, I have read the entire Douay-Rheims Bible, all 72 books, word-for-word, aloud. I did this as a private devotion and it took me 3 1/2 years. I have read large parts of it many times over, and have also read the entire King James New Testament, as well as many books of the KJV OT. I am well aware that Our Lord can and does use men of varying degrees of sanctity — and sometimes not much of it — to do His Will.

I don’t know if it’s a contemporary Catholic thing, or a post-Vatican II thing, or an American thing, or a generational thing, or what have you, but I have noticed in recent years that mixed motives, or doing the right thing for less than totally virtuous reasons, has become frowned upon and has fallen out of favor. I managed to inspire some respectful disagreement on this forum a few months back, when I suggested that a person who has a massive failure, “falls flat on their face” in secular life, might, just might, be called to the priesthood or religious life instead. “Oh, no, it has to be a free decision, uninfluenced by anything else”. Really? Is life really that clear-cut? Are motives always pure? Is life not messy from time to time? Mine is. I can’t speak for others.

Many times, the Lord works in mysterious ways, and accomplishes His ends through imperfect people who act imperfectly and from all kinds of motives.
 
Re: abortion, the Lord is working through President Trump. I have no doubt of this.
🙏
 
More to the point, replace “abortion” with “intentional homicide.”
 
Last edited:
If I understand Trump In this video his position is (or was). “I hate abortion, but I won’t deny (in law) others from making their own choice (to abort or not).”
 
Last edited:
This video is dated 20 years ago!
The other video early is from few years ago… and it’s troubling…

I encourage all to read about Trump’s brutal anti-life policies toward asylum seekers and on capital punishment… the USCCB is a great resource and the article below gives view in to how vile this … no excuse for this in a period of long economic expansion… anti-Christian, anti-life

 
This video is dated 20 years ago!
I’m sure that I had an opinion or two 20 years ago that I would repudiate today, and would not wish to have been recorded and broadcast on nationwide television (as though any opinion I might ever have on anything would be newsworthy — I am nobody and I live a very quiet life, aside from my family I only interact with a handful of neighbors and a few shopkeepers within a mile or so of my home, no siblings, extended family is all either deceased or scattered all over and long lost touch).
 
I’m sure that I had an opinion or two 20 years ago that I would repudiate today,
Well, this one is a matter of life and death. But I agree with you - people can change. And a public figure like Trump, who has put his various positions in the public domain over time, probably should acknowledge his past and make clear he has reviewed his prior position and now sees the matter differently (if that’s the case). Not sure if he’s done that or not.
 
Just asking, but did the majority of Americans vote on this pro-choice stance that was shoved down our throats??? I don’t think so… It came from a thought from the SC–something about privacy… Then the Dems took it and ran with it so that they don’t even have room in their platform to say that pro-life women/men are welcome… That’s why a lot of people are re-thinking their party affiliation. When you look at the latest ultra-sounds of babies in the womb they are so crisp and clear you can see facial family similarities. This is SCIENCE! And one more thought, our U.S. Constitution says at the very beginning that all are created equal with certain rights… the right to LIFE… is the very first one enumerated. How can any SC justice say that it’s ok because a lot of mothers want to do that, or a lot of fathers want the mothers to do that???
 
When was Gorsuch confirmed? Wasn’t that geared toward conservatives/pro-life?
 
How can any SC justice say that it’s ok because a lot of mothers want to do that, or a lot of fathers want the mothers to do that???
You would have to ask them.

Keep in mind that Americans tend to be legal positivists — the law is the law because the lawgiver says it is the law, and if something’s legal, that makes it “right”. This is 180 degrees opposite what the Catholic Church teaches, and 180 degrees opposite from natural law and traditional Catholic jurisprudence. There are other people besides Catholics who believe in natural law, to be sure, but the tendency of (I would say) most Americans is to accept disputed matters, that have ostensibly been “settled” legally (abortion, gay marriage, even the notion of divorce dissolving a marriage), as settled indeed, and not a matter for further discussion.
 
Just asking, but did the majority of Americans vote on this pro-choice stance that was shoved down our throats??? I don’t think so… It came from a thought from the SC–something about privacy…
Yeah, that was the rationale for Roe v. Wade. A pretty poor one also. Soon after the decision came out, John Hart Ely wrote an extremely good critique of the decision:
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5116&context=fss_papers

A few parts are obsolete (e.g. its valid criticisms of the different rules based on pregnancy trimester were obviated in the later Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but the main points hold up. Please note that John Hart Ely was pro-choice and cannot be accused of bias.
And one more thought, our U.S. Constitution says at the very beginning that all are created equal with certain rights… the right to LIFE… is the very first one enumerated.
That’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
How can any SC justice say that it’s ok because a lot of mothers want to do that, or a lot of fathers want the mothers to do that???
The question was never whether allowing for abortion was “ok” or not. To my knowledge, every Supreme Court justice that has ever opined on the subject, including those who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, all affirmed that the government could choose to allow abortions. The argument against Roe v. Wade was that it was incorrect in asserting that the Constitution meant the government had to allow for abortion. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong opponent of Roe v. Wade, stated in his Planned Parenthood v. Casey dissent:

“The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

But if the question is why the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally required… well, that’s critically discussed in the link above.
 
Last edited:
Has seemed consistent with some modification/evolution of views since 2011.
  • End medical research that uses tissue from aborted fetuses. (Jun 2019)
  • FactCheck: Late abortions only for non-viable fetus. (Feb 2019)
  • Cherish innocent life instead of ripping babies from womb. (Feb 2019)
  • Completed conversion from 1999 pro-choice to 2019 pro-life. (Feb 2019)
  • Reinstate Mexico City Policy: end abortion funding abroad. (Jan 2017)
  • Unpredictable abortion funding good; Planned Parenthood bad. (Nov 2016)
  • Not acceptable to rip baby from womb in 9th month. (Oct 2016)
  • Overturn Roe v, Wade and return abortion laws to the states. (Oct 2016)
  • Millions are helped by Planned Parenthood, but defund it. (Feb 2016)
  • Planned Parenthood does great work on women’s health. (Feb 2016)
  • Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)
  • Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)
  • I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
  • Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
  • Undecided on embryonic stem cell research. (Apr 2011)
  • I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
  • I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
  • I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
  • Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
  • Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
 
Last edited:
Planned Parenthood does great work on women’s health
In their defense, they do carry out some good work, such as gynecological examinations, cervical cancer testing, STD testing and treatment, and so on. But these services could be obtained at any OB/GYN clinic. It is like saying that the Nazis did a good job building superhighways (which they did) or that Kim Jong-un puts on some pretty impressive entertainment spectacles (ditto).

I am all in favor of poor women getting all of the health care they need, OB/GYN and otherwise, at minimal or no cost to them.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Planned Parenthood does great work on women’s health
In their defense, they do carry out some good work, such as gynecological examinations, cervical cancer testing, STD testing and treatment, and so on. But these services could be obtained at any OB/GYN clinic. It is like saying that the Nazis did a good job building superhighways (which they did) or that Kim Jong-un puts on some pretty impressive entertainment spectacles (ditto).

I am all in favor of poor women getting all of the health care they need, OB/GYN and otherwise, at minimal or no cost to them.
And his…
  • I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
…while allowing that PP “is important” or that there are …
  • …exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
Or moving to …
  • Overturn Roe v, Wade and return abortion laws to the states. (Oct 2016)
…is beyond the typical moderate Democrat or liberal Republican who is “personally opposed to abortion” but concedes that it is the law of the land and therefore all must respect what the democratic process has made the law.

He has moved further of late to …
  • Completed conversion from 1999 pro-choice to 2019 pro-life. (Feb 2019)
  • Cherish innocent life instead of ripping babies from womb. (Feb 2019)
What I find difficult to grasp is how the move people like Abby Johnson have made from working at PP, or even having an abortion, to completely opposing it is acceptable as “evolution,” but Trump moving from being pro-choice to adamantly pro-life is not.
 
Last edited:
What I find difficult to grasp is how the move people like Abby Johnson have made from working at PP, or even having an abortion, to completely opposing it is acceptable as “evolution,” but Trump moving from being pro-choice to adamantly pro-life is not.
I’ll admit I was suspicious, but I trusted Pence, and that Trump would do the right thing, if only to keep his base, or under pressure.

He certainly seems to have done the right things, and your list, and that speech, make me believe that his conversion is in fact genuine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top