Donald Trump op-ed: My vision for a culture of life


#1

Donald Trump op-ed: My vision for a culture of life

By Donald J. Trump • 1/23/16 via Washington Examiner

Let me be clear — I am pro-life. I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk. I did not always hold this position, but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. My story is well documented, so I will not retell it here. However, what I will do with the remaining space is express my feelings about life, and the culture of life, as we just marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our “unalienable” rights.

Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago, over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country. They never had the chance to become doctors, musicians, farmers, teachers, husbands, fathers, sons or daughters. They never had the chance to enrich the culture of this nation or to bring their skills, lives, loves or passions into the fabric of this country. They are missing, and they are missed.

The Supreme Court in 1973 based its decision on imagining rights and liberties in the Constitution that are nowhere to be found…


#2

What would Trump do to make childbirth more affordable for mothers? It would be nice to hear his ideas for bringing down the high cost of healthcare, including the obscene costs of childbirth and delivery. Does his vision for a culture of life include healthcare that extends to sufficient prenatal care?


#3

This reminds me a bit of Ronald Reagan’s pro-life testament he once wrote:

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

The values and freedoms we cherish as Americans rest on our fundamental commitment to the sanctity of human life. The first of the “unalienable rights” affirmed by our Declaration of Independence is the right to life itself, a right the Declaration states has been endowed by our Creator on all human beings–whether young or old, weak or strong, healthy or handicapped.

Since 1973, however, more than 15 million unborn children have died in legalized abortions–a tragedy of stunning dimensions that stands in sad contrast to our belief that each life is sacred. These children, over tenfold the number of Americans lost in all our Nation’s wars, will never laugh, never sing, never experience the joy of human love; nor will they strive to heal the sick, or feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights, and we are infinitely poorer for their loss.

We are poorer not simply for lives not led and for contributions not made, but also for the erosion of our sense of the worth and dignity of every individual. To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all. Slavery, which treated Blacks as something less than human, to be bought and sold if convenient, cheapened human life and mocked our dedication to the freedom and equality of all men and women. Can we say that abortion–which treats the unborn as something less than human, to be destroyed if convenient–will be less corrosive to the values we hold dear?

We have been given the precious gift of human life, made more precious still by our births in or pilgrimages to a land of freedom. It is fitting, then, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that struck down State anti-abortion laws, that we reflect anew on these blessings, and on our corresponding responsibility to guard with care the lives and freedoms of even the weakest of our fellow human beings.

Read more at: preciousadornment.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/ronald-reagan-on-the-right-to-life/


#4

did Obama do any of those things?


#5

Well The best way to bring down the cost of healthcare would be to eliminate Obamacare . However the proper manner in which we should provide healthcare is a political discussion and the church neither endorses or apposes either parties solution to this. Disagreeing with a pro-life candidates policies on healthcare does not allow a Catholic to vote for pro abortion candidate who’s views on healthcare are more to their liking


#6

Really?

Enough said!


#7

It is unfortunate that he supports the usual exceptions to the right to life. However we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the possible . If we have a candidate who supports abortion on demand versus a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape incest and health of the mother I would go with the latter .


#8

So he isn’t really pro-life even if we take him at his word, which I don’t.
The “life of the mother” exception is a loophole you can throw a truck through. “Life of” gets extended to “health of” then psychological or emotional health (why else exceptions for rape and incest?). Finally, as now, life of the mother winds up meaning convenience.


#9

If one lived back in the days of Slavery, would one be saying “Look at the economic advantages of slavery” if one is just breaking this down from an economic angle?


#10

Actually, I agree with you.

And, so, there is nothing wrong with voting against candidates who while claiming to be pro-life proponents, are anti-social justice…there are many candidates out their who’s lack of compassion for the disenfranchised is more harmful than their self-proclaimed pro-life stance is helpful.

Here in lies a reason I just won’t vote in the upcoming elections: Church teaching on abortion is non-negotiable, and if I support a candidate who does not view it that way, I am contributing and personally sanctioning the belief that Church teachings only count when its convenient.

Its an all or nothing proposition, not one of the lessor of two evils.

But that’s a personal choice, and because of it, I can’t fault those who see candidates who are anti-life as the lessor of two evils over those candidates who are anti-social justice.


#11

Minus those exceptions how many lives would be saved with his present pro-life views?

The following is an old article but still relevant I think:

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions

By TAMAR LEWIN Published: October 13, 1989 via New York Times

For all the symbolic importance of the House of Representatives’ move to restore the Federal financing of abortions for poor women when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape, the practical effect would likely be very limited.

Indeed, in a 1987 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in which abortion patients were asked why they were having an abortion, only 1 percent of the 1,900 women questioned named rape or incest. And 95 percent of those who mentioned rape or incest named other reasons as well for deciding to abort, the institute said…

Further pertinent statistics:

Fact Sheet ** --Induced Abortion in the United States**

Guttmacher Institute July 2014

…snip The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner…

Donald Trump may not have the Pro-Life views that we all would like but stacked up against the above statistics he can still be considered Pro-life in my view.

Mike


#12

Trump in the past, possibly as far back as 2012, told Santorum that Rick’s abortion view was too extreme and radical; and Santorum’s view is to protect all life. In the given political climate and on a national basis, of course, the view Trump is espousing can be considered Pro-Life and is similar to Romney’s view.

Santorum: Trump Once Told Me I Was Way Too ‘Hard-Core’ on Abortion, Gay Marriage
mediaite.com/online/santorum-trump-once-told-me-i-was-way-too-hard-core-on-abortion-gay-marriage/

It’s back to the old argument, half a loaf is better than no loaf of bread and in this case, it might be 80% or more of that loaf of bread.

I’m glad this story got posted, I was looking for it earlier in the news.


#13

I’ll take it. Compare that to the positions of Democrats.
The abortion rate with the exceptions would probably drop 90%
1 step at a time :wink:


#14

As Archbishop Chaput put it it is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils-it is a matter of votong to lessen evil


#15

If you were in a war and had the choice of fighting with a General who would conquer 95% of the enemy or with one who would conquer 0% whom would you get behind?

It seems as if you would choose to run home.

And I meant that as a brotherly swift kick in the behind.

Mike


#16

Also folks, we can only overturn this abortion agenda either by legislation or an overturning of this law through a pro life group of Supreme Court Justices. There will be three or possibly four vacancies open in the coming four years. We would need a pro life Congess, a pro life Senate and a pro life president that would appoint these justices. Even if they appear pro life or are Catholic, you still have justices that will rule incorrectly, such as the Catholic judge that ruled in favor of the SS case in June. Don’t kid yourself that a president can do everything, even though our present one is trying to do that by his executive powers. Defunding Parenthood would be a good first step. Amending health care so births and pre natal care would be affordable is another. Taking the funds away from Planned Parenthood and giving it to healthcare for expectant mothers could do that now! And states defunding Planned Parenthood could do the same. Money talks, and that’s why PP is so angry. And most of all prayers, especially the Rosary.


#17

There are articles about Trump’s sister who is pro-choice and seemingly, could be a choice for the SCOTUS;

I’ll preface these articles too, as just saying, this is basically “chit-chat” stuff and perhaps not “real” solid as far as being news articles, Daily Mail publishes all kinds of things and Red State has an obvious slant.

Cruz refuses to hit Trump in Iowa – but his endorsers say The Donald will ‘appoint his partial-birth-abortion-loving sister to the Supreme Court’ and his 'arrogance is beyond imagination!'
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3414031/Ted-Cruz-refuses-hit-Trump-Iowa-endorsers-carry-mud-pail-paint-Donald-arrogant-imagination.html#ixzz3yBZN2MLB

Trump has already indicated, he would not nominate his sister to the SCOTUS; still!

Also:

Donald Trump Floats A Pro-Abortion Vice President
Trump and…Scott Brown?

redstate.com/2016/01/16/donald-trump-floats-pro-abortion-vice-president/

All of that said, Donald is not my first choice but says some good things.

Something to watch for.


#18

The problem with the “all or nothing” mentality, especially when it comes to politics, is that it ignores the reality that throughout the entirety of human history profound change has almost always come through incremental steps. Here’s a fact, if you want all or nothing as it relates to pro-life issues you will almost always get nothing.

Frankly the reason why people like Trump and Romney profess support for those exceptions is because of Roe v. Wade which has established precedent in America. It is a politically safe position and for someone like Romney who sought to win a national election it would appeal to more than just the “all or nothing” crowd that would likely be more on the side of his running mate Paul Ryan.

Here’s a question: Had Romney/Ryan won the 2012 election, do you believe the pro-life movement would have benefited more or less than they have since then under Obama?


#19

If the Republican party was serious about abortion they would have passed a law when they controlled the Congress, including now, which said that personhood begins at conception. The evil SC ruling was predicated on the idea personhood did not exist until birth.

Hard to say. Nothing has changed on the national level despite various Republican Presidents and even a Republican Congress with a Republican President. On the state level much progress has been made. But the lack of progress on the national level is preventing victory.


#20

Trump floats a lot of names for VP. He means it as a compliment, not as a job offer.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.