President Donald Trump: Unborn Babies Have a “Basic and Fundamental Human Right, the Right to Life”


In his letter to the pro-life advocates, President Trump made it clear that he believes unborn children have a fundamental right to life.

“We all have a duty to defend the most basic and fundamental human right — the right to life. As President I am dedicated to protecting the lives of every American including the unborn,” Trump wrote.


As a Supreme Court pick looms, these words are reassuring to pro-life people, whether they voted for him or not.

For now, in America, abortion is legal, but day by day, more restricted than ithad been at it’s zenith (or morally it’s nadir).

I appreciate the President’s forthright and direct proclaimation on the subject.

It may surprise some how much the President’s words sound like the Pope’s on this subject.

May the Holy Spirit continue to guide and inspire them both. And all leaders of the Church and State in all countries. And us.

May we welcome the children the Father is gifting us with as our dear brothers and sisters. And may we assist their dear mothers (fathers, grandparents, step parents, foster parents and guardians) with the helps they need to nurture and educate these children into responsible adolescent and adult citizenship.


Trump’s sexual behavior in his life that he has admitted to (avoiding VD in NY nightclubs was his personal Vietnam and cheating on his first two wives) and the behavior he has been accused of (having unprotected sex with Stormy Daniels) creates the very lives that are most commonly destroyed in abortion. Until the men of America learn to behave properly sexually, it is unlikely abortion will end.


Yes, his personal behavior has been reprehensible. Thank the Good Lord his brain is focused on the correct side on this issue at least. Excited to see his Supreme Court choice!


A lot of people become more sexually moral when they get old. Maybe Trump has seen the light and turned into a family man. Let’s hope so. Meanwhile, the correct response to any sinner’s behavior is to pray for him.

In any event there have been thousands of world leaders throughout history with lousy sexual morals, just like thousands of people walking around in society also have lousy sexual morals. God still managed to use some of these leader to do good things for His Church.


Yes, indeed; but as I thought to myself as I was voting for him, we’re not electing him to the office of saint.


Yup, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court…


And you give up the moral high ground of saying abortion is wrong when you elect a man whose behavior is the type that results in abortion. Basically, you gave pro-abortion advocates the hypocrisy card.


I’m confused. Are you saying a choice better than voting for a pro-life man with reprehensible behavior is to vote for an avowed pro-abortion rights candidate?


I’m not sure you can have that sort of behavior and be pro-life.


You didn’t answer my question. Is it better to vote for a deeply flawed pro-life candidate (who you imply MIGHT not be able to be pro-life due to his behavior) OR a candidate who is an avowed pro-abortion rights candidate, who is absolutely CERTAIN to support any and all abortion legislation and policies?


I don’t think anyone who exhibits that sort of behavior is truly pro-life.


“think”? He did appoint Gorsuch who appears to be pro-life…so he is some where between 0% pro-life and 100% pro-life. Most Catholics I know will take that over “100% pro-abortion rights.”



If men didn’t act in this way, there would be no need for such laws…


As opposed to the moral high ground of directly voting for someone who actually has acted and vowed to promote and expand abortion. That moral high ground?


I fear you’ll understand shortly what overturning Roe v Wade will mean if you don’t keep the moral high ground.


And what will it mean, exactly? What are you referring to with your vague and ominous threats?


If Roe is overturned soon without a strong social safety net, there will be a significant backlash that will allow legalized abortion to continue.


If Roe is overturned I fully expect the liberal states with legislatures controlled by the Democratic Party to immediately move to preserve legalized and extremely liberal abortion in those states. I expect the majority of states controlled by a Republican legislature to immediately move to ban abortions, though I also expect many of these to retain exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest. In both instances the fight to protect life will continue, but with the top cover of Roe removed, there is a real chance that pro-life legislatures can actually fully ban abortion on a state by state basis.

Now what has any of this got to do with a moral authority? At what point have the opponents of pro-life legislation or of just Republicans generally ever held that Republicans have any moral authority? How would state level legalization of abortion be driven by a backlash against Republican moral authority rather than Democrat support for women’s choice? What has a social safety net got to do with perceived moral authority?


Because without the moral authority, you will lose many of these attempts to legislate. And without the social safety net, you won’t reduce the number of abortions. And that, after all, should be the goal, not checking a box saying Roe has been overturned.

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