In final debate, candidates diverge sharply on abortion [CNA]

Washington D.C., Oct 20, 2016 / 11:30 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In the final presidential debate on Wednesday, the major party candidates were pressed to explain their positions on abortion. Hillary Clinton defended her earlier support of partial-birth abortion, while Donald Trump reiterated the assertion that he is pro-life.

“I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life [Supreme Court] justices,” Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, stated at the debate.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, said about mothers’ decisions to have abortions, “I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.”

Trump and Clinton debated for the final time on Wednesday evening at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. They answered questions from debate moderator Chris Wallace, anchor of “Fox News Sunday,” on topics including abortion, the Supreme Court, foreign policy, and health care.

The next president will appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court. Early in the debate, Wallace pressed Trump on if, as president, he would want the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 decision that declared a woman’s “right” to an abortion existing under her right to privacy.

Trump said he would appoint pro-life justices, but stopped short of saying he wanted the Court to overturn the Roe decision. “If that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life justices,” he said, “it [the legality of abortion] will go back to the individual states.”

Clinton, for her part, declared her strong support for Roe and also for Planned Parenthood, the “reproductive health care” organization that is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

“So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising their choices to the extent that they are defunding Planned Parenthood, which of course provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country,” she said. Planned Parenthood does not in fact provide cancer screenings, however, only referrals for screenings.

Wallace followed up by asking Clinton about partial-birth abortion: “You have been quoted as saying the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. Why?”

Clinton defended her vote. “Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account,” she answered. “And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.”

Trump then pressed Clinton on the issue of late-term abortion.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother, just prior to the birth of the baby,” he said. “Now you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me.”

Clinton disputed that description, dismissing it as “scare rhetoric,” but did not provide her own description of the procedure. Instead, she insisted that, for pregnant mothers, the decision to abort is “one of the worst possible choices” they could make, “and I do not believe the government should be making it.”

Abortion has been a contentious topic in this year’s campaign. Clinton has been a long-time staunch supporter of abortion. Trump has previously praised Planned Parenthood doing “very good work” for women and defended partial-birth abortion. During this campaign, however, he said he has had a change of heart and is now pro-life. He says he would support defunding Planned Parenthood of federal tax dollars.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List and leader of the Trump campaign’s pro-life coalition, said that “Clinton’s position on abortion is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans who support a compassionate limit on abortion after five months and who do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortion on-demand.”

In her defense of legal abortion, Clinton also referenced her international travels as Secretary of State insist that government should not involve itself in a woman’s decision about her pregnancy.

She said that “I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children like they used to do in Romania.”

However, one human rights advocate – Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers – strongly contested Clinton’s claim that China “used to” mandate forced abortions, saying that their forced family planning policy still exists and that Clinton’s claim was “untrue and deeply disappointing.”

For decades, the Chinese Communist government had a mandatory one-child-per-family policy. Women found to be pregnant without a permit would be turned into to local authorities by their neighbors and would be forced to have abortions and be sterilized. As many families chose to have only a male child, a serious gender imbalance has resulted in China.

The Chinese government announced last year that it would allow families to have two children.

However, the forced abortions and pregnancy screenings continue, Littlejohn insisted. “Women of child-bearing age” undergo four pregnancy screenings per year, and married women cannot have more than two children, while single women cannot have any children, she said.

Full article…

One strongly supports abortion rights, even partial birth abortions, the other does not.

I choose to be 100% pro-life and go with a third party choice. None of this “lesser of two evils” bit for me. :wink:

Hillary Clinton is without doubt the most rabidly pro-abortion candidate I have ever encountered. A remarkable feat, she outdoes even Barack Obama in her support of abortion. If she become president, prepare for abortion to be her number one priority, followed by using the government to work against the Catholic Church and Christian conservatives in every way possible…

I agree.

And it’s just my opinion, but a vote for a third party candidate is in effect a vote for HRC.

Call it anything you want – but voting 3rd party is voting for HRC… The Trump ship is sinking fast.

Thanks! I will!

Yeah, that’s what I said. :shrug:

You also have to consider whether the Trump Ship would set back conservative social causes for 20 years, if he’s elected. He doesn’t exactly win friends and influence people very well.

Nate McMullen might be a real pro-life candidate, although most voters would have to write him in. There is a mathematically-possible way for him to win–that is, he gets electoral votes from Utah, no one gets 270 needed to win on a first ballot, and he wins on an electoral ballot after the first one–but I don’t see it happening. Donald Trump has driven too many undecided voters to believe that they can’t risk having him elected by failing to vote for Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, every person who fails to oppose her in a real way is responsible for it and everything she does.

Does that sound shocking? Even ill-mannered? Insensitive? Consider:

Much of this and other threads inevitably puts me to mind of something Solzhenitsyn said in his “Gulag” series. Solzhenitsyn, as one surely knows, was one of the great moralists of the 20th Century who, along with Pope JPII and others was credited with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He met a man in prison who had been wrongly sentenced to death. The man, obviously one of great courage, told Solzhenitsyn that on his way to the execution chamber, he would say to everyone involved; the jailer who opened the cell door, the guards escorting him to the basement where people were shot, the shooter: “You, and you alone are guilty of my death; not the prosecutor, not the accuser, not the Politburo, not even Stalin, but you.”

In other words, those who are knowingly complicit with evil deeds, even passively, are as guilty of the evil of the final act as those who decreed it and those who pulled the trigger, regardless of the ostensible reasons for their complicity.

And for those who fail to oppose Hillary Clinton, it’s not one being executed, it’s millions.

Conservative social causes may very well be permanently damaged if Hillary Clinton is elected. I believe most liberals understand this and are willing to hold their nose and pull the lever for Clinton to accomplish this end.

I mean that if he gets elected he could torch the Republican party.

On the other hand, it is not The One True Party on Earth. Maybe it could stand to start from scratch. I don’t know. The whole topic sends me into “put not your trust in princes” mode.

Realistically, the Republican Party is already imploding somewhat. Look at the many Republicans who are throwing their weight behind Clinton or Johnson instead of Trump.

This election isn’t about Democrat vs. Republican, it’s about Globalist vs Nationalist.


God Bless Bernadette

:sad_yes: Voting for a third party candidate might be ‘noble’ and all, but the vote won’t count for anything; the independent parties never seem to win… Last I heard, they’re not even allowed to participate in the presidential debates.

In life, there are winners and there are losers; you win some and you lose some. The ‘independents’ *never *seem to win. Why should we support the losers?

The conservatives and democratic parties control the motions. No matter what happens, one or the other will win, and we Christians should properly support the Conservative parties, as their ideals align more with ours, rather than the democratic parties.

The Conservative party is far from perfect, but the same can be said for every other political party. All in all: The Conservatives the better choice, and, unlike the independent party, they will *always *have a shot at winning.

:shrug: In my opinion.

Personally, I prefer a two tier election system. in the first tier each party chooses one candidate and the election is held. You can vote for one person from among the many chosen or write in any candidate. After the first election, we reach the second tier, where the top two candidates from the first election are running and you vote for one or the other. There might be some additional provisions such as if in the first election one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, then he is declared to be the winner and the second election is cancelled.

Might make you feel good, but you will accomplish nothing, quite the opposite, you will make it easier for Clinton to accomplish her goals. Please don’t take it personally, but it’s the truth.

You know where Trump stands, the pro-life individuals he will appoint to the supreme court, and you know where Clinton stands, the pro-choice individuals she will appoint to the supreme court. If you don’t take a united stand now, than it’s just words. It could not be any more clear in this election.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading

Good night! You will NOT be bullying me (or anyone) into voting against my conscience. You are a bully and there are no two ways about it. :mad:

Speaking on a personal level regarding your “vote will mean nothing” talk. Over the course of this election I’ve come to fully accept that my vote will not count, it will be meaningless. In my state, Donald Trump has a 99.3% chance of winning all 4 of my states electoral votes. I am voting third party. A vote for him on my part will have absolutely no bearing on him gaining these electoral votes, he is going to win them. You are right in stating that A vote for my third party candidate will have absolutely no impact on the election as a whole…it will neither help Trump nor Clinton. It will accomplish “nothing” as you say for the country as a whole, but my vote will absolutely be true to both my conscience, and my Catholic beliefs. If it wasn’t for the fact that I care for issues and other “minor” candidates that I feel need my vote down ticket then Id likely wouldn’t vote this election. For the presidential portion of the ticket…I am voting for my “meaningless” third party candidate .

Great voting guide provided right here on Catholic answers…

For anyone not planning on voting…
It is Church teaching that we have a responsibility to vote:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good** make it morally obligatory** to pay taxes,**** to exercise the right to vote****, and to defend one’s country:

For those who think the right to life can be ignored because of other issues, here is the teaching of Saint John Paul II…
Respecting the Inviolable Right to Life

38… Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

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