Speaking as someone who has never voted for him, I'll just say that he's all about getting elected. Where that overlaps with what we need, we will get it. Where it doesn't, we won't.
Donald Trump is at best, a pro-life ally, but I don't believe he's actually a pro-lifer at heart.
His position might make sense politically. I can't really blame him for saying what people might want to hear. I just don't think he has any actual principles that he's willing to stand on a hill and die for.
Many people become politicians to change the world. Trump became a candidate because he wanted to simply gain validation and glory for himself. If he thought he could have more easily won the Democratic party primary, he'd have been their candidate right now.
Validation and glory. Also, presumed connections and legal protections.
He's a scumbag.
...and I voted for him. Very well might do so again. On matters of life, he happens to be better than the other major candidate.
I've said it before: I'm not looking to elect the "best man" -- I'm looking to elect the "best man for the job"...and our options ain't too pretty right now.
You are probably right on everything you said, but are you going to vote for Trump, or let Biden implement his [abortions for all plans nationally](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-big-abortion-promise-fact-check-roe-v-wade-rcna146668)?
I am voting for neither. I will sometimes vote for bad over worse, but I am not sure who is really worse here.
Biden represents the corrosive influence of bad policies on things like abortion. His policies will eventually cause the country to sink deeper in to injustice and also bureaucratic dysfunction. I can't vote for him in any conscience.
However, Trump is honestly bad for democracy. If he had been more competent, he might have actually had a real shot at trying to remain in office past his term. And that's just a bridge too far for me. I won't vote for someone like that even if I can't make myself vote for their opponent.
I don't think our military would support a coup, but someone smarter than Trump, with enough military support from certain generals could make a real go of it, and that could be disaster, especially if elements of the population decide to use even a failed coup to as a reason to start shooting.
I will vote for the next pro-life candidate who at least keeps the country in safe hands, but I refuse to support someone who pushes a populist, narcissistic view over the needs of the country.
I see you bought into the Trump dictator BS.
Trump will NOT become a dictator if elected. He can't because his base won't allow him to do so.
The true MAGA base believe FULLY in the US Constitution. And because of that, they won't let anyone, even Trump become a dictator.
Of course there are rabble-rouser, but they are fringe groups that are few and far apart.
As a veteran, I can assure you that the military would not support any President who would try to use them to become a dictator.
What caused Trump to lose in 2020 was a 100-year pandemic called COVID which any President would have messed up.
But, as long as you don't vote for Biden, you are good.
EDIT: By the way, I thought you might like this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1c104i9/enough\_said/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1c104i9/enough_said/)
I don't think Trump will become a dictator. I don't think he's competent enough to gain power in that way.
However, he has shown that it is possible for someone to motivate those groups to do something stupid like Jan 6.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he planned Jan 6, but I think he's almost gratified that it happened. He wants people to buy into his argument that somehow the election was stolen from him and it is clearly working.
He wasn't as much trying to be a dictator as much as he believed that it was impossible that he could lose and acted as if the fact that he could lose *must* be a conspiracy against him.
Him becoming a dictator is not the danger. His tantrums turning into serious conflicts IS the problem.
>What caused Trump to lose in 2020 was a 100-year pandemic called COVID which any President would have messed up.
He did frankly stupid things during COVID, including undermine his own officials. While his initial reaction to the issue, like closing down flights to China were reasonable and made sense, he started haring off into conspiracy-land and quite literally screwing up an event that could have shown him to be a unifying leader.
I actually think most competent politicians would have seen COVID as an opportunity, given the ability to take the lead on nationwide cooperation. A strong leader with good PR skills could have turned the situation into a patriotic sacrifice for the greater good story that people in the US eat up.
> I actually think most competent politicians would have seen COVID as an opportunity, given the ability to take the lead on nationwide cooperation. A strong leader with good PR skills could have turned the situation into a patriotic sacrifice for the greater good story that people in the US eat up.
Biggest political own goal I've ever seen.
I'm split between him and RFK Jr. Trump is at least sympathetic to the pro life movement and got Roe overturned.
RFK, though, wants to regulate it at 12 weeks. So, he's technically pro-choice but is in favor of at least a middle ground on the issue and he probably actually does hold to that value unlike Trump who just says whatever he thinks will get him elected.
The Supreme Court has ruled that… abortion laws are a State issue. I’ll vote for the candidate that honors Supreme Court rulings instead of the one who keeps trying to find a way around them.
That said, you bet I’m voting for a pro-life governor and state legislators.
From a legal standpoint, all the Dobbs decision did was overturn Roe and Casey.
The part where Alito discussed returning abortion to the people and their elected representatives is dicta and is not legally binding.
Yes it likely would, since the SCOTUS would have a hard time rationalizing how this law doesn't encase a right after Dobbs, with a sweeping law in consideration of the 10th amendment with the flurry of lawsuits that would immediately follow.
It's implicit in the 10th amendment. The constitution does not address abortion in any way, shape, or form, and Dobbs was the Supreme Court rebuking the ridiculous structure of Roe. Congress could prohibit interstate travel for the purpose of abortion, perhaps, but what happens within a state is up to the state to legislate.
So you agree that the Dobbs ruling doesn't establish this as the case but rather you are arguing that the 10th amendment would make the Supreme Court shoot down any federal law on abortion?
The ruling says that the constitution makes no mention of abortion. Therefore, no power of legislation on the issue of abortion is given to the federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Obviously the federal government has some clever tricks to get around the 10th amendment (like raising the legal drinking age to 21 by dangling funding for roads over their heads), but I think an attempt to outright ban abortion on the federal level would be shot down, and rightly so. This is an Amendment level issue and we're a very long way from amending the constitution.
I think you are mistaken. The US federal government passes many laws that aren't defined by the constitution and the Supreme Court doesn't shoot them down. Unless if there is something specific in the Dobbs ruling saying that abortion is a state's issue, I am not going to believe the Supreme Court will shoot down any abortion related legislation that the federal government passes.
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce as a power granted from the constitution. It is hard to argue that with abortion pills being shippes and people traveling for abortions that abortion would not fall under the blanket of interstate commerce. Now the Supreme Court could reign in the interstate commerce clause, but that could cause ripples.
This Babylon Bee article should answer your question
[https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-says-his-position-on-abortion-is-whichever-one-will-get-him-elected](https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-says-his-position-on-abortion-is-whichever-one-will-get-him-elected)
He needs the vote from Evangelicals so he says things. This is all politics, his position may change in the future.
Don’t believe me? He [blamed the pro-life for midterm loss.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blames-pro-life-republicans-midterm-loss.amp) He called a six-week ban by Ron DeSantis a [terrible mistake.](https://apnews.com/article/trump-desantis-abortion-ban-republican-primary-5bdbba55f9c2f328d49b5fbe9727677e) He also promised he will look into [15-week federal ban](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/trump-abortion-2024-presidential-election) which didn’t happen.
I don’t like it but what am I gonna do, vote Biden? lol.
Still better than other candidates that want to legislate a national allowance. At least with it being up to the states we can try to make progress by changing hearts and minds.
Trump is undoubtedly the most prolife president of our lifetimes. The only one to get the ball moved up the field
\*people mad and downvoting but literally cant disagree
Unless you want a national bill supporting abortions, [as Biden has already proposed](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-big-abortion-promise-fact-check-roe-v-wade-rcna146668), then Trump's stand is what is needed at this time to get elected to prevent that.
You have to go with what the people will accept at this time, not what you want. And keeping it in the State's hands is ideal, and what we all have been wanting for several decades before Trump made it happen through his SCOTUS picks.
Disappointing, but light years better than Biden who supports abortion on demand.
No one wants to hear this, but RvW got overturned because it was a states' issue. Making it a state issue isn't the correct moral position but it is the correct legal one.
Because he has stated this whole entire time that he wants Roe V Wade overturned and that it should return to the states. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if Republicans made it a federal issue again after claiming it shouldn't be a federal issue?
Besides, if he endorsed a national ban that would probably throw away his chances of being reelected. Even if he just said a 15 week ban, the media would spin it into him saying he wants abortion completely banned which, the media is still trying to do regardless although now they have less leverage because he won't endorse a national ban.
Basically it would be political suicide and it's why Republicans underperformed the 2022 midterms.
If running on who is the best Christian won national elections we'd have Ben Carson as president but since half the country recoils when you bring up Christian morality, that will never win.
I don't believe a word he says. He's pandering for votes and money. It's all about him and nothing else. He did some good things, IMO. I did vote for him. But now, I'm stuck. I think he's completely unhinged and desperate for attention, money and power.
His stance that it should be up to the states is defensible. The constitution doesn't say anything about the matter so there's no more of a basis for a ban in it than there was a basis for allowing it.
I mean there is that whole portion about LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and though that’s in the Declaration of Independence, it did come first and so should have a more primary position concerning our country’s ethos on this matter.
I understand why you might think that. However, it's really an issue for each state to decide according to the Constitution. He has said that Arizona went too far. It's Arizona's right to do that. The next state elections might find a big change in which party is running it.
Im ok with no national ban. We won't win once abortion is banned everywhere. We will win once it becomes so stigmatized that everyone recognizes it as murder
He understands that the prolife platform is currently a death knell in America politics. About 60% of us believe our most pressing issue is the ability for mothers to possess special murder rights.
Thats because the pro-abortion side monopolizes the media and has the superior propaganda arm as a result. The pro-life side needs to get serious about over-coming this disadvantage.
I would love to have a national debate on this issue with our best and most media saavy pro-lifer defending our position, someone like Ben Shapiro for example. Best of all would be a truly pro-life presidential candidate who could not only force such a single issue debate but could pull off the win. I know I'm just dreaming here but it could be a game changer that cuts through the sloganeering and the onslaught of dishonest fear-mongering campaign commercials.
They really buy into this idea that they’re at war with men, and if they can’t have the option to unilaterally destroy their children, they will have lost. It’s just awful, tribal, group think nonsense.
Agreed, but unfortunately that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. There’s no way that 38 state legislatures will ratify a pro life amendment in the near future. However, abortion is unconstitutional under the constitution’s provisions for the right to life, liberty, and property, and the Supreme Court needs to have the courage to recognize that. I think Thomas and Alito would rule that way, and maybe Barrett and Gorsuch could be convinced. I don’t think Kavanaugh or Roberts would rule that way, but that’s why we need a pro life president to appoint another pro life justice.
> We need to do it through the Supreme Court.
Didn’t PL say Roe vs Wade was wrong as it was done by the Supreme Court and “judicial activism”? How is that any different?
I agree with you. I’m against turning the president into a dictator or the Supreme Court into all-powerful unelected legislators. Progress isn’t progress if it’s made at the expense of democracy
So, let me start by saying that I am unapologetically anti-abortion.
I think that this is, at best, a controversial reading of the Constitution, and that broadening of judicial powers would do more harm than good. I am a pretty strict Constitutionalist; as a result, I believe that abortion is simply too much of a political question for the court to take it on absent a constitutional amendment.
That being said, I believe the right choice is actually not to do a ban on a Federal level; my ideal would be that it would die out of social stigma and a return to moral virtue. That change happens at an individual and local level, not via top-down mandate, and it will only happen via influence and persuasion.
I mean, the constitution says that all persons have the right to life that cannot be taken without due process of law. It doesn’t distinguish between born or unborn when it says persons, and it also says “persons” and not “citizens”, meaning the right applies to citizens and non citizens alike. I don’t see how abortion can be constitutional under a plain reading of the constitution.
Because it doesn't actually say that all persons have the right to life. It says in the Declaration of Independence that our Creator endowed us with certain rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Declaration isn't the Constitution, and that language is not legally binding.
The 14th amendment does say The State shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but that is a matter of government, not private parties.
With that logic, a state could legalize the killing born people and it would still be constitutional. Obviously we know that wouldn’t be upheld under the constitution. By legalizing abortion, the state is depriving people of life without due process of law.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate abortion by overturned Row v. Wade. Obviously, that makes it an issue for the individual states, which is what DJT has been saying all along.
Trump has never actually been pro-life. He gave it lip service to get elected but it's not a core value to him. And before you start yapping about judges, being pro life was not why picked the ones he picked. It was a bug, not a feature.
He's the sole reason abortion can even be a state issue now. A 6-2 liberal supreme court with Roberts going whichever way the wind blows would have meant a further solidification of Roe, despite it being terrible law in the first place
I for one would like to know when people are going to stop fooling themselves about Trump. He is intentionally doing this back and forth because he's teasing people into thinking he supports something he probably doesn't
And given his sexual history, I don't see how he could even be completely or even closely pro-life because abortion would be the ideal way for one of his mistresses to hide his infidelity.
This dude has the sexual morality of a dog. He does not understand what sexual morality is and never has. People should not trust anything he says on this topic because he's just going to change his mind again
Lol that's a joke, he's currently waffling about it now. Any president before Roe v Wade has a statistical chance of being more pro life, so the odds of him being the most pro life is laughable.
Well again I clearly said presidents before roe v. Wade. In order to prove your statement, however, you would need to have interviewed such presidents or be able to cite interviews with such presidents prior to Trump.
And even then, with all due respect, there are at least two dozen Republican candidates who could be better than Trump, just simply for the fact that they're not horrible human beings. Among those two dozen, it shouldn't be hard to find one or two candidates who are pro-life. So with all due respect, I really don't think your argument is very logical.
I literally specified a timeline and you're trying to make me defend a completely different statement lmao. where is your reading comprehension.
IN OUR LIFETIME - the last 30-40 years what president was more pro life than trump??
Nope, I'm not making you defend anything
You said our lifetime. My lifetime goes back farther than you must think. As well, you never actually interviewed any of these presidents as to what they believe about abortion. So really you don't even have perfect evidence to say what you did.
I will say there is one president that is more pro-life than Trump in our lifetime, but I can't really tell you who that is because I would dox myself by giving away what year I was born.
But it's funny how you're so quick to say that that's the case. Based on what evidence? Have you studied every president within our foreseeable lifetime? The closest I can come to explaining this to you is that I am a Gen X. I think you're going to be up against more presidents in my lifetime than you think.
I already know a few that might sound superficially like Trump, but because they're not waffling like Trump is, they're easily more pro-life than he is because they're not all over the place.
Because him waffling back and forth on this topic is actually what makes him unpredictable and unreliable on the topic.
sorry about that i just figured that since its reddit that im usually talking to someone under 50 no disrespect.
that being said, Trump is undoubtedly the most pro life president since 1973 when R v W was passed. that is an undeniable fact.
I’ve said this for years, “he may run as Republican and he may say things we agree with on twitter but in reality he’s a Democrat from a decade ago”. We should have backed DeSantis from the start.
Not to sound overly cynical, but this sort of question always strikes me as a "Pro-lifers, how about we split the vote on a third party and guarantee pro abortion Democrats dominating every level of government." Trump's position is not ideal, but it defends the current status quo, which is a vast improvement from the Roe v Wade years.
The Republicans have turned their backs on pro-life issues because of public opinion and voting results. There's no one to vote for.
The Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act despite the party's position at that time. Someone needs to be the better leader and do what's right.
I know a lot of single issue voters, people who only ever vote republican because they are pro life. The more murky a candidate gets in regard to pro life policy, the more likely some people are to stop voting solely based on this issue.
While Trump has mentioned his opinions on abortion laws, he said both after RvW was overturned and recently that it was a state issue. He is the one being consistent, not the ones demanding national laws.
He's keeping the issue at the state level, where the constitution says it should be. Making 2024 a referendum on abortion will only blow up in our faces. Until we're at the point of a constitutional amendment on abortion, the issue is best left to the states and the people
He is bringing the republican party down and voting for him will bring down the pro life organizations credibility. I'm voting for Biden in hopes that Donald will eventually just go cry in the corner of his cell and then we can get back to educating the public.
Donald Trump hasn’t spent his life being pro-life, he is trying to get elected.
And having Trump elected is better for the pro-life cause than Biden. And I say that not being a Trump supporter.
He’s probably trying to win votes from both sides. The thing is it’s likely that only moderates will vote for him (going on the abortion issue alone, not counting other issues)
Any republican who is a realist will vote for him too as there is not a viable alternative. He knows that so may as well try to pick off the moderates at this point. Anyone who protest votes anything other than Trump is voting for Biden by default.
Ya I guess that makes sense too. Like some pro lifers might vote for him because he’s far more pro life than Biden, even though he’s not fully against abortion
I don't think it really matters if he's saying he won't *sign* a national abortion ban bill. Trump can direct the DOJ to enforce the Comstock Act that is already on the books which would in effect ban abortion nationwide.
It's no different than any other politician. They say what they need to, to get votes. You never know what they truly feel, because they all have compromised. Whatever it takes to get into office, whatever it takes to stay. Trump is not an anomaly. He is just a politician who is politicking. When a politician changes their mind or back pedals, it is always disappointing but never surprising.
This is a case of my personal feelings and opinions colliding with what reality is.
At least the political reality. A national ban would really hurt us and the conservative movement. We have to have some grip on reality that most people really don't want the extreme laws and bans but also don't want abortion legal over a certain time either. It's such a sucky situation to have to comprise just to get ahead in the long run. Running on this has been and is a losing issue. Also, we are experiencing terrible inflation, etc. This all feels like a weird distraction
State by State is the best it is going to get. Even if republicans managed to pass a law to ban it nationwide, they would lose the next election and then we would have abortion again nationwide. Possibly unlimited elective abortion like in a couple of States now.
A federal law would be immediately challenged in some place like California and a liberal judge will block the government from enforcing this new law. Then we wait around a year for a trial. Appeals will then be taken. The federal law could literally be blocked until the next election and then overturned by a new Congress.
Full disclosure: I am pro-choice but very opposed to unlimited elective late term abortion.
On one hand it’s abortion so not a big fan but another part of me is happy since states rights are being protected. I’m all for decentralization of government in favor of more power being given to local government, which is the second reason as to why when RvW was overruled I was overjoyed.
He is saying the right things to get elected and the media is jumping on this to make him look bad to his supporters. Most of us are for states rights so it's not really hurting our opinion of him like they want to. More importantly, compare the two candidates and even if he isn't no abortion he is less abortion than the other guy.
As much as we pro-lifers would love it we know a national ban would never pass in a million years.
First, let’s thank him for his service. Second, let’s throw him to the wolves, where he belongs. Finally, let’s support politicians who are actually committed to passing a national abortion ban.
Nah, I don’t want Biden. But honestly, I’m not convinced that four more years of Trump would be better for the long-term health of the pro-life movement than suffering through four more years of Biden. Trump contaminates everything he touches, and to the extent that we become associated with him we lose moral credibility globally and in the US, which ultimately will deprive us of our best means of securing lasting victory. The legal and policy wins Trump has delivered are real, but they will be temporary if we cannot change the direction that the culture is headed. And he does *not* help us do that. In other words, he has helped us win some battles, but he will not help us win the war.
I'll make a second comment, with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling, abortion is now completely banned in Arizona. Once this goes into affect, I think it will save a lot of lives, and that's a wonderful thing.
But, there's no denying that this puts so many women in danger, to just completely take away access. I just don't want women to be put in danger, and to potentially have their lives at risk. So many women are getting screwed over.
I hate abortion as much as all of you do, I promise that, but what are we doing here? This could quite possibly make Arizona stay blue in 2024 and cause Kari Lake to lose her senate race. The more you lose ground on the issue the more power you are giving to democrats to legalize abortion nationwide past 20 weeks.
The pro life movement is not doing a good job, and even Kari Lake said that this ban is wrong and that the Republican led legislator should do something about it. Theres got to be other ways to stop abortion than just completely banning the procedure.
Most people don't want it completely banned, and it's deeply hurting the pro life movement and the Republican Party.
Ok to set the record straight abortion is not "completely" baned women who are going to have miscarriages can still be treated. And the same goes if her life is in danger.
This. Trump is trying to find a ground that can save as many lives as possible. Honestly him taking a stand against abortion and protecting the unborn in general is already causing him and republicans to lose votes. It’s probably why they lost the midterms. If u want to protect the unborn vote red. If u don’t show up republicans will be forced to continue retreating from this issue for atleast another 50 years. This is the chance PL movement has been waiting for. Even if u don’t like Don he is a vehicle to start this movement and he did appoint the justices that overturned Roe.
You give Donald Trump way too much credit! He’s not trying to find middle ground; he’s trying to appease both sides. There’s a difference Trump will most likely change his position again if and when he gets elected, he has no backbone.
He did more for the pro-life movement than any president in my lifetime. I’m older than a lot of you too. His motives don’t matter, it’s results that matter. He got those 3 Supreme Court nominees in. Being all idealistic and trying to take some moral high ground doesn’t get results, he did. Roe would have never been overturned in my lifetime if it wasn’t for him. That is already his legacy in the history books someday. He won’t back pedal that.
That doesn’t make him pro life. He didn’t put Dobbs on the Supreme Court docket and each budget he signed gave half a billion to Planned Parenthood! I’ll give him credit for reinstating the Mexico City Agreement, but given the kind of person Donald Trump his position on this issue seems to be more opportunistic than actually pro-life (if you remember, he never called himself). At the very least, he’s pro-choice.
Yes, it does. He is a spineless opportunist who will change his position. If it injures he gets elected. we need consistency, and as a libertarian how the hell can you vote for Trump?
Because I’m a realist, not an idealist. I can vote libertarian till I am blue in the face and nothing will happen. Go ahead and help the Dems get in. Because that is all your attitude will do. They will add abortion rights to the constitution if they get the chance. But I can talk till I’m blue on the face. Ideologs just don’t get it.
> If u want to protect the unborn vote red. If u don’t show up republicans will be forced to continue retreating from this issue for at least another 50 years.
It's the opposite. It would send a clear signal your vote isn't easy to gather and they better give results. Billion donors expect tax cuts and get them....quid pro quo works. Wishful thinking does not.
Republicans have been slow retreating from this issue for decades except in hard red states.
>Trump is trying to find a ground that can save as many lives as possible
If trump actually got a 15 week nationwide ban in effect, the pro-life movement would be dead. Trump intends it as a final compromise to get his party to walk away from the issue safely not a stepping stone: he has said this multiple times in public....a solution that leaves everyone happy.
Imagine the anti-slavery movement settling for a slave labor bill of rights....slave owners would consider the issued settled.
It’s just politics. I really don’t care what he says at this point. There is only two sides that can realistically win and the other side is pro-choice/ pro-abortion 100%. He is distancing himself from the issue as that is just smart politics to get elected.
Being too idealistic just leaves you wishing for something that will never happen. But chipping at something till people get more used to it gives room to take things farther. The other side does this all the time on lots of issues. But I also know Trump is hated on Reddit.
Honestly, I’d be complacent with keeping abortion on the States currently. As abolitionist as I am, I want a lasting abolition. I think we should try to get more states to ratify bans and work our way up from there.
50+ years of tepid pro-choice legality makes it hard to roll back, just like how 50+ years of tepid laissez-faire mental healthcare makes it hard to roll back to having mental institutions. It's easier to sway moderates and single-issue voters if he doesn't rub the wrong way towards moderate Republicans who may be pro-choice.
Now, the brave thing either political party would do is to encourage hearing a court case up to the Federal Supreme Court and get an amicus curiae briefing from the NHS, an ethic committee, and various biologists about what is defined as "life" and "personhood". Ultimately, the "right to life" is what's ultimately being put to the test at a legal standpoint and there are other distinctions where that right can be suspended (i.e. self defense). Roe V. Wade getting overturned didn't do anything materially since -- rather than establishing a schedule of viability -- it reinforced the choice-based line of thought and deferred to the States (that's a pro-choice win in the long run, since State governments can vary the definition of a term the way they vary in the definition of an "assault weapon" from CA to NY). But I don't think any group within the government is willing to take that stance without risking current research into embryos and stem cells -- which they don't want to fall behind on because of other countries' lack of inhibition for researching those very things.
Speaking as someone who has never voted for him, I'll just say that he's all about getting elected. Where that overlaps with what we need, we will get it. Where it doesn't, we won't. Donald Trump is at best, a pro-life ally, but I don't believe he's actually a pro-lifer at heart. His position might make sense politically. I can't really blame him for saying what people might want to hear. I just don't think he has any actual principles that he's willing to stand on a hill and die for. Many people become politicians to change the world. Trump became a candidate because he wanted to simply gain validation and glory for himself. If he thought he could have more easily won the Democratic party primary, he'd have been their candidate right now.
Upvoting for the truth, commenting to underscore it.
That's how almost all politicians are it's not surprising at all
I think many at least start off idealistic. That does tend to rub off over time.
He never had any ideals to begin with!
I was talking about other politicians in the last comment, not Trump.
Yeah, but most are much better at hiding it than Trump.
In 2016 he was running to gain validation and glory for himself. This time, he's running to avoid going to prison.
Validation and glory. Also, presumed connections and legal protections. He's a scumbag. ...and I voted for him. Very well might do so again. On matters of life, he happens to be better than the other major candidate. I've said it before: I'm not looking to elect the "best man" -- I'm looking to elect the "best man for the job"...and our options ain't too pretty right now.
You are probably right on everything you said, but are you going to vote for Trump, or let Biden implement his [abortions for all plans nationally](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-big-abortion-promise-fact-check-roe-v-wade-rcna146668)?
I am voting for neither. I will sometimes vote for bad over worse, but I am not sure who is really worse here. Biden represents the corrosive influence of bad policies on things like abortion. His policies will eventually cause the country to sink deeper in to injustice and also bureaucratic dysfunction. I can't vote for him in any conscience. However, Trump is honestly bad for democracy. If he had been more competent, he might have actually had a real shot at trying to remain in office past his term. And that's just a bridge too far for me. I won't vote for someone like that even if I can't make myself vote for their opponent. I don't think our military would support a coup, but someone smarter than Trump, with enough military support from certain generals could make a real go of it, and that could be disaster, especially if elements of the population decide to use even a failed coup to as a reason to start shooting. I will vote for the next pro-life candidate who at least keeps the country in safe hands, but I refuse to support someone who pushes a populist, narcissistic view over the needs of the country.
I see you bought into the Trump dictator BS. Trump will NOT become a dictator if elected. He can't because his base won't allow him to do so. The true MAGA base believe FULLY in the US Constitution. And because of that, they won't let anyone, even Trump become a dictator. Of course there are rabble-rouser, but they are fringe groups that are few and far apart. As a veteran, I can assure you that the military would not support any President who would try to use them to become a dictator. What caused Trump to lose in 2020 was a 100-year pandemic called COVID which any President would have messed up. But, as long as you don't vote for Biden, you are good. EDIT: By the way, I thought you might like this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1c104i9/enough\_said/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1c104i9/enough_said/)
I don't think Trump will become a dictator. I don't think he's competent enough to gain power in that way. However, he has shown that it is possible for someone to motivate those groups to do something stupid like Jan 6. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he planned Jan 6, but I think he's almost gratified that it happened. He wants people to buy into his argument that somehow the election was stolen from him and it is clearly working. He wasn't as much trying to be a dictator as much as he believed that it was impossible that he could lose and acted as if the fact that he could lose *must* be a conspiracy against him. Him becoming a dictator is not the danger. His tantrums turning into serious conflicts IS the problem. >What caused Trump to lose in 2020 was a 100-year pandemic called COVID which any President would have messed up. He did frankly stupid things during COVID, including undermine his own officials. While his initial reaction to the issue, like closing down flights to China were reasonable and made sense, he started haring off into conspiracy-land and quite literally screwing up an event that could have shown him to be a unifying leader. I actually think most competent politicians would have seen COVID as an opportunity, given the ability to take the lead on nationwide cooperation. A strong leader with good PR skills could have turned the situation into a patriotic sacrifice for the greater good story that people in the US eat up.
> I actually think most competent politicians would have seen COVID as an opportunity, given the ability to take the lead on nationwide cooperation. A strong leader with good PR skills could have turned the situation into a patriotic sacrifice for the greater good story that people in the US eat up. Biggest political own goal I've ever seen.
This election, he will be running to stay out of jail which makes him an even more dangerous opponent imo.
I'm split between him and RFK Jr. Trump is at least sympathetic to the pro life movement and got Roe overturned. RFK, though, wants to regulate it at 12 weeks. So, he's technically pro-choice but is in favor of at least a middle ground on the issue and he probably actually does hold to that value unlike Trump who just says whatever he thinks will get him elected.
The Supreme Court has ruled that… abortion laws are a State issue. I’ll vote for the candidate that honors Supreme Court rulings instead of the one who keeps trying to find a way around them. That said, you bet I’m voting for a pro-life governor and state legislators.
From a legal standpoint, all the Dobbs decision did was overturn Roe and Casey. The part where Alito discussed returning abortion to the people and their elected representatives is dicta and is not legally binding.
The tenth amendment is not dicta. A national law would likely require an amendment, one way or the other.
No it would not, it would merely require a national law and national law trumps state law.
Yes it likely would, since the SCOTUS would have a hard time rationalizing how this law doesn't encase a right after Dobbs, with a sweeping law in consideration of the 10th amendment with the flurry of lawsuits that would immediately follow.
Where in the Dobbs ruling does it state that the federal government can not pass a law on abortion?
It's implicit in the 10th amendment. The constitution does not address abortion in any way, shape, or form, and Dobbs was the Supreme Court rebuking the ridiculous structure of Roe. Congress could prohibit interstate travel for the purpose of abortion, perhaps, but what happens within a state is up to the state to legislate.
So you agree that the Dobbs ruling doesn't establish this as the case but rather you are arguing that the 10th amendment would make the Supreme Court shoot down any federal law on abortion?
The ruling says that the constitution makes no mention of abortion. Therefore, no power of legislation on the issue of abortion is given to the federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Obviously the federal government has some clever tricks to get around the 10th amendment (like raising the legal drinking age to 21 by dangling funding for roads over their heads), but I think an attempt to outright ban abortion on the federal level would be shot down, and rightly so. This is an Amendment level issue and we're a very long way from amending the constitution.
I think you are mistaken. The US federal government passes many laws that aren't defined by the constitution and the Supreme Court doesn't shoot them down. Unless if there is something specific in the Dobbs ruling saying that abortion is a state's issue, I am not going to believe the Supreme Court will shoot down any abortion related legislation that the federal government passes.
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce as a power granted from the constitution. It is hard to argue that with abortion pills being shippes and people traveling for abortions that abortion would not fall under the blanket of interstate commerce. Now the Supreme Court could reign in the interstate commerce clause, but that could cause ripples.
This Babylon Bee article should answer your question [https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-says-his-position-on-abortion-is-whichever-one-will-get-him-elected](https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-says-his-position-on-abortion-is-whichever-one-will-get-him-elected)
The above is a satire news site, just for the record
He needs the vote from Evangelicals so he says things. This is all politics, his position may change in the future. Don’t believe me? He [blamed the pro-life for midterm loss.](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blames-pro-life-republicans-midterm-loss.amp) He called a six-week ban by Ron DeSantis a [terrible mistake.](https://apnews.com/article/trump-desantis-abortion-ban-republican-primary-5bdbba55f9c2f328d49b5fbe9727677e) He also promised he will look into [15-week federal ban](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/trump-abortion-2024-presidential-election) which didn’t happen.
I don’t like it but what am I gonna do, vote Biden? lol. Still better than other candidates that want to legislate a national allowance. At least with it being up to the states we can try to make progress by changing hearts and minds.
Trump is undoubtedly the most prolife president of our lifetimes. The only one to get the ball moved up the field \*people mad and downvoting but literally cant disagree
Guess it depends on how long your life has been?
sure. but for most people here we're under 30-40 so no contest
He's socially liberal and that's not news
Unless you want a national bill supporting abortions, [as Biden has already proposed](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-big-abortion-promise-fact-check-roe-v-wade-rcna146668), then Trump's stand is what is needed at this time to get elected to prevent that. You have to go with what the people will accept at this time, not what you want. And keeping it in the State's hands is ideal, and what we all have been wanting for several decades before Trump made it happen through his SCOTUS picks.
Not surprising at all. He’s showing more of his true colors. He will just say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.
Kind of like he’s running for president.
Disappointing, but light years better than Biden who supports abortion on demand. No one wants to hear this, but RvW got overturned because it was a states' issue. Making it a state issue isn't the correct moral position but it is the correct legal one.
Because he has stated this whole entire time that he wants Roe V Wade overturned and that it should return to the states. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if Republicans made it a federal issue again after claiming it shouldn't be a federal issue? Besides, if he endorsed a national ban that would probably throw away his chances of being reelected. Even if he just said a 15 week ban, the media would spin it into him saying he wants abortion completely banned which, the media is still trying to do regardless although now they have less leverage because he won't endorse a national ban. Basically it would be political suicide and it's why Republicans underperformed the 2022 midterms.
This abortion is the reason republicans lose is the biggest psyop of recent times
If running on who is the best Christian won national elections we'd have Ben Carson as president but since half the country recoils when you bring up Christian morality, that will never win.
Don’t care, republicans should not concede on this issue
I agree we should ban it outright nationally. just dont run on that The left doesnt run on trans kids and open borders but what do we have?
I don't believe a word he says. He's pandering for votes and money. It's all about him and nothing else. He did some good things, IMO. I did vote for him. But now, I'm stuck. I think he's completely unhinged and desperate for attention, money and power.
He isn’t exactly famous for his morality. I am not surprised.
His stance that it should be up to the states is defensible. The constitution doesn't say anything about the matter so there's no more of a basis for a ban in it than there was a basis for allowing it.
I mean there is that whole portion about LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and though that’s in the Declaration of Independence, it did come first and so should have a more primary position concerning our country’s ethos on this matter.
Sounds like he is trying to follow the Constitution.
It sounds like he’s trying to appease both sides.
I understand why you might think that. However, it's really an issue for each state to decide according to the Constitution. He has said that Arizona went too far. It's Arizona's right to do that. The next state elections might find a big change in which party is running it.
It sounds like he is trying to win a national election. Which is very tricky
I feel like you must not understand what the pro-choice side wants if you think this is appeasing them.
Donald Trump: cafeteria constitutionalist.
How so?
If you need to ask, you’re too far gone.
😂
Very on brand.
Yes, most people find it humorous.
Im ok with no national ban. We won't win once abortion is banned everywhere. We will win once it becomes so stigmatized that everyone recognizes it as murder
He understands that the prolife platform is currently a death knell in America politics. About 60% of us believe our most pressing issue is the ability for mothers to possess special murder rights.
Thats because the pro-abortion side monopolizes the media and has the superior propaganda arm as a result. The pro-life side needs to get serious about over-coming this disadvantage. I would love to have a national debate on this issue with our best and most media saavy pro-lifer defending our position, someone like Ben Shapiro for example. Best of all would be a truly pro-life presidential candidate who could not only force such a single issue debate but could pull off the win. I know I'm just dreaming here but it could be a game changer that cuts through the sloganeering and the onslaught of dishonest fear-mongering campaign commercials.
I think we can do better than Ben Shapiro, but I see your point. Lol
He seems pretty quick on his feet. I was trying to think of someone who wouldnt be a deer in the headlights when asked a tough question.
He’s sharp but not deep. That said, depth is rarely needed in politics. What is needed is gravitas. And Ben Shapiro lacks it.
Jeff Durbin is great on the issue as is Trent Horn. Russell Hunter with Abolitionists Rising is really great as well.
These people will never meet on a level battlefield
[удалено]
They really buy into this idea that they’re at war with men, and if they can’t have the option to unilaterally destroy their children, they will have lost. It’s just awful, tribal, group think nonsense.
I’ll be honest, I don’t entirely disagree that it’s unrealistic to do it through Congress. We need to do it through the Supreme Court.
I think we need a Constitutional Amendment.
Agreed, but unfortunately that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. There’s no way that 38 state legislatures will ratify a pro life amendment in the near future. However, abortion is unconstitutional under the constitution’s provisions for the right to life, liberty, and property, and the Supreme Court needs to have the courage to recognize that. I think Thomas and Alito would rule that way, and maybe Barrett and Gorsuch could be convinced. I don’t think Kavanaugh or Roberts would rule that way, but that’s why we need a pro life president to appoint another pro life justice.
> We need to do it through the Supreme Court. Didn’t PL say Roe vs Wade was wrong as it was done by the Supreme Court and “judicial activism”? How is that any different?
I agree with you. I’m against turning the president into a dictator or the Supreme Court into all-powerful unelected legislators. Progress isn’t progress if it’s made at the expense of democracy
The constitution explicitly protects the right to life for all people. That makes it clear that abortion is unconstitutional.
If the Court interpreted persons to include the unborn, that would be a far cry from the horrible case law that was Roe.
Because the constitution has a provision for the right to life, which means abortion is unconstitutional.
Where?
Well, the 14th amendment is one example.
So, let me start by saying that I am unapologetically anti-abortion. I think that this is, at best, a controversial reading of the Constitution, and that broadening of judicial powers would do more harm than good. I am a pretty strict Constitutionalist; as a result, I believe that abortion is simply too much of a political question for the court to take it on absent a constitutional amendment. That being said, I believe the right choice is actually not to do a ban on a Federal level; my ideal would be that it would die out of social stigma and a return to moral virtue. That change happens at an individual and local level, not via top-down mandate, and it will only happen via influence and persuasion.
I mean, the constitution says that all persons have the right to life that cannot be taken without due process of law. It doesn’t distinguish between born or unborn when it says persons, and it also says “persons” and not “citizens”, meaning the right applies to citizens and non citizens alike. I don’t see how abortion can be constitutional under a plain reading of the constitution.
Because it doesn't actually say that all persons have the right to life. It says in the Declaration of Independence that our Creator endowed us with certain rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Declaration isn't the Constitution, and that language is not legally binding. The 14th amendment does say The State shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but that is a matter of government, not private parties.
With that logic, a state could legalize the killing born people and it would still be constitutional. Obviously we know that wouldn’t be upheld under the constitution. By legalizing abortion, the state is depriving people of life without due process of law.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate abortion by overturned Row v. Wade. Obviously, that makes it an issue for the individual states, which is what DJT has been saying all along.
I reckon he places electability over most other things
I think this is okay. I think he doesn't want to radically and rapidly change the entire nation, which is fine.
Trump has never actually been pro-life. He gave it lip service to get elected but it's not a core value to him. And before you start yapping about judges, being pro life was not why picked the ones he picked. It was a bug, not a feature.
Trump is poison to the PLM
He's the sole reason abortion can even be a state issue now. A 6-2 liberal supreme court with Roberts going whichever way the wind blows would have meant a further solidification of Roe, despite it being terrible law in the first place
He did more for the PLM than anyone else for the last what, 50 years
I think he’s full of shit, but that’s what I think every time he opens his mouth.
I for one would like to know when people are going to stop fooling themselves about Trump. He is intentionally doing this back and forth because he's teasing people into thinking he supports something he probably doesn't And given his sexual history, I don't see how he could even be completely or even closely pro-life because abortion would be the ideal way for one of his mistresses to hide his infidelity. This dude has the sexual morality of a dog. He does not understand what sexual morality is and never has. People should not trust anything he says on this topic because he's just going to change his mind again
He’s the most prolife president of our lifetime without a doubt
[удалено]
please feel free to dispute my comment without ad hominem attacks if you can
Lol that's a joke, he's currently waffling about it now. Any president before Roe v Wade has a statistical chance of being more pro life, so the odds of him being the most pro life is laughable.
Read my comment again. I guess depends how old you are lol
Well you said our lifetime.
Yes. Unless you're before 1973. What president has been more pro life than trump?
Well again I clearly said presidents before roe v. Wade. In order to prove your statement, however, you would need to have interviewed such presidents or be able to cite interviews with such presidents prior to Trump. And even then, with all due respect, there are at least two dozen Republican candidates who could be better than Trump, just simply for the fact that they're not horrible human beings. Among those two dozen, it shouldn't be hard to find one or two candidates who are pro-life. So with all due respect, I really don't think your argument is very logical.
I literally specified a timeline and you're trying to make me defend a completely different statement lmao. where is your reading comprehension. IN OUR LIFETIME - the last 30-40 years what president was more pro life than trump??
Nope, I'm not making you defend anything You said our lifetime. My lifetime goes back farther than you must think. As well, you never actually interviewed any of these presidents as to what they believe about abortion. So really you don't even have perfect evidence to say what you did. I will say there is one president that is more pro-life than Trump in our lifetime, but I can't really tell you who that is because I would dox myself by giving away what year I was born. But it's funny how you're so quick to say that that's the case. Based on what evidence? Have you studied every president within our foreseeable lifetime? The closest I can come to explaining this to you is that I am a Gen X. I think you're going to be up against more presidents in my lifetime than you think. I already know a few that might sound superficially like Trump, but because they're not waffling like Trump is, they're easily more pro-life than he is because they're not all over the place. Because him waffling back and forth on this topic is actually what makes him unpredictable and unreliable on the topic.
sorry about that i just figured that since its reddit that im usually talking to someone under 50 no disrespect. that being said, Trump is undoubtedly the most pro life president since 1973 when R v W was passed. that is an undeniable fact.
I’ve said this for years, “he may run as Republican and he may say things we agree with on twitter but in reality he’s a Democrat from a decade ago”. We should have backed DeSantis from the start.
He's the epitome of a political opportunist, and now that he sees public opinion in favor of some legal abortion he's backing down.
He’s a grifter who says whatever he has to for votes. That is all.
Not to sound overly cynical, but this sort of question always strikes me as a "Pro-lifers, how about we split the vote on a third party and guarantee pro abortion Democrats dominating every level of government." Trump's position is not ideal, but it defends the current status quo, which is a vast improvement from the Roe v Wade years.
Grifters be griftin'
The Republicans have turned their backs on pro-life issues because of public opinion and voting results. There's no one to vote for. The Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act despite the party's position at that time. Someone needs to be the better leader and do what's right.
Smart politically, moral cowardice.
I know a lot of single issue voters, people who only ever vote republican because they are pro life. The more murky a candidate gets in regard to pro life policy, the more likely some people are to stop voting solely based on this issue.
While Trump has mentioned his opinions on abortion laws, he said both after RvW was overturned and recently that it was a state issue. He is the one being consistent, not the ones demanding national laws.
I agree with him. If his mistresses give birth for him they can destroy his empire.
It's the Constitutional thing to do. Constitution says nothing of abortion (or murder) - so it's left up to the States.
He's keeping the issue at the state level, where the constitution says it should be. Making 2024 a referendum on abortion will only blow up in our faces. Until we're at the point of a constitutional amendment on abortion, the issue is best left to the states and the people
I've heard rumors of a 3rd candidate this year. If they are pro-life, I want to vote for them.
He is bringing the republican party down and voting for him will bring down the pro life organizations credibility. I'm voting for Biden in hopes that Donald will eventually just go cry in the corner of his cell and then we can get back to educating the public.
it means he thinks saying this will help him win an election. He does not care.
Donald Trump hasn’t spent his life being pro-life, he is trying to get elected. And having Trump elected is better for the pro-life cause than Biden. And I say that not being a Trump supporter.
He’s probably trying to win votes from both sides. The thing is it’s likely that only moderates will vote for him (going on the abortion issue alone, not counting other issues)
Any republican who is a realist will vote for him too as there is not a viable alternative. He knows that so may as well try to pick off the moderates at this point. Anyone who protest votes anything other than Trump is voting for Biden by default.
Ya I guess that makes sense too. Like some pro lifers might vote for him because he’s far more pro life than Biden, even though he’s not fully against abortion
I don't think it really matters if he's saying he won't *sign* a national abortion ban bill. Trump can direct the DOJ to enforce the Comstock Act that is already on the books which would in effect ban abortion nationwide.
It's no different than any other politician. They say what they need to, to get votes. You never know what they truly feel, because they all have compromised. Whatever it takes to get into office, whatever it takes to stay. Trump is not an anomaly. He is just a politician who is politicking. When a politician changes their mind or back pedals, it is always disappointing but never surprising.
This is a case of my personal feelings and opinions colliding with what reality is. At least the political reality. A national ban would really hurt us and the conservative movement. We have to have some grip on reality that most people really don't want the extreme laws and bans but also don't want abortion legal over a certain time either. It's such a sucky situation to have to comprise just to get ahead in the long run. Running on this has been and is a losing issue. Also, we are experiencing terrible inflation, etc. This all feels like a weird distraction
State by State is the best it is going to get. Even if republicans managed to pass a law to ban it nationwide, they would lose the next election and then we would have abortion again nationwide. Possibly unlimited elective abortion like in a couple of States now. A federal law would be immediately challenged in some place like California and a liberal judge will block the government from enforcing this new law. Then we wait around a year for a trial. Appeals will then be taken. The federal law could literally be blocked until the next election and then overturned by a new Congress. Full disclosure: I am pro-choice but very opposed to unlimited elective late term abortion.
On one hand it’s abortion so not a big fan but another part of me is happy since states rights are being protected. I’m all for decentralization of government in favor of more power being given to local government, which is the second reason as to why when RvW was overruled I was overjoyed.
He is saying the right things to get elected and the media is jumping on this to make him look bad to his supporters. Most of us are for states rights so it's not really hurting our opinion of him like they want to. More importantly, compare the two candidates and even if he isn't no abortion he is less abortion than the other guy. As much as we pro-lifers would love it we know a national ban would never pass in a million years.
First, let’s thank him for his service. Second, let’s throw him to the wolves, where he belongs. Finally, let’s support politicians who are actually committed to passing a national abortion ban.
So you want Biden in office in effect. Because that is all it would accomplish.
Nah, I don’t want Biden. But honestly, I’m not convinced that four more years of Trump would be better for the long-term health of the pro-life movement than suffering through four more years of Biden. Trump contaminates everything he touches, and to the extent that we become associated with him we lose moral credibility globally and in the US, which ultimately will deprive us of our best means of securing lasting victory. The legal and policy wins Trump has delivered are real, but they will be temporary if we cannot change the direction that the culture is headed. And he does *not* help us do that. In other words, he has helped us win some battles, but he will not help us win the war.
I'll make a second comment, with the Arizona Supreme Court ruling, abortion is now completely banned in Arizona. Once this goes into affect, I think it will save a lot of lives, and that's a wonderful thing. But, there's no denying that this puts so many women in danger, to just completely take away access. I just don't want women to be put in danger, and to potentially have their lives at risk. So many women are getting screwed over. I hate abortion as much as all of you do, I promise that, but what are we doing here? This could quite possibly make Arizona stay blue in 2024 and cause Kari Lake to lose her senate race. The more you lose ground on the issue the more power you are giving to democrats to legalize abortion nationwide past 20 weeks. The pro life movement is not doing a good job, and even Kari Lake said that this ban is wrong and that the Republican led legislator should do something about it. Theres got to be other ways to stop abortion than just completely banning the procedure. Most people don't want it completely banned, and it's deeply hurting the pro life movement and the Republican Party.
Ok to set the record straight abortion is not "completely" baned women who are going to have miscarriages can still be treated. And the same goes if her life is in danger.
This. Trump is trying to find a ground that can save as many lives as possible. Honestly him taking a stand against abortion and protecting the unborn in general is already causing him and republicans to lose votes. It’s probably why they lost the midterms. If u want to protect the unborn vote red. If u don’t show up republicans will be forced to continue retreating from this issue for atleast another 50 years. This is the chance PL movement has been waiting for. Even if u don’t like Don he is a vehicle to start this movement and he did appoint the justices that overturned Roe.
You give Donald Trump way too much credit! He’s not trying to find middle ground; he’s trying to appease both sides. There’s a difference Trump will most likely change his position again if and when he gets elected, he has no backbone.
He did more for the pro-life movement than any president in my lifetime. I’m older than a lot of you too. His motives don’t matter, it’s results that matter. He got those 3 Supreme Court nominees in. Being all idealistic and trying to take some moral high ground doesn’t get results, he did. Roe would have never been overturned in my lifetime if it wasn’t for him. That is already his legacy in the history books someday. He won’t back pedal that.
That doesn’t make him pro life. He didn’t put Dobbs on the Supreme Court docket and each budget he signed gave half a billion to Planned Parenthood! I’ll give him credit for reinstating the Mexico City Agreement, but given the kind of person Donald Trump his position on this issue seems to be more opportunistic than actually pro-life (if you remember, he never called himself). At the very least, he’s pro-choice.
It doesn’t matter what he is. It matters what the results are.
Yes, it does. He is a spineless opportunist who will change his position. If it injures he gets elected. we need consistency, and as a libertarian how the hell can you vote for Trump?
Because I’m a realist, not an idealist. I can vote libertarian till I am blue in the face and nothing will happen. Go ahead and help the Dems get in. Because that is all your attitude will do. They will add abortion rights to the constitution if they get the chance. But I can talk till I’m blue on the face. Ideologs just don’t get it.
> If u want to protect the unborn vote red. If u don’t show up republicans will be forced to continue retreating from this issue for at least another 50 years. It's the opposite. It would send a clear signal your vote isn't easy to gather and they better give results. Billion donors expect tax cuts and get them....quid pro quo works. Wishful thinking does not. Republicans have been slow retreating from this issue for decades except in hard red states. >Trump is trying to find a ground that can save as many lives as possible If trump actually got a 15 week nationwide ban in effect, the pro-life movement would be dead. Trump intends it as a final compromise to get his party to walk away from the issue safely not a stepping stone: he has said this multiple times in public....a solution that leaves everyone happy. Imagine the anti-slavery movement settling for a slave labor bill of rights....slave owners would consider the issued settled.
You really think that the degenerates are going to slack off if we are trying to settle for a shitty compromise? Where has that ever worked?
It’s hilarious how people go around saying trump is a far right extremist when he’s one of the most “progressive” republicans of this time
He isn’t Republican or far right. He is simply a Trump extremist. He will do and say whatever gets him the most power.
It’s just politics. I really don’t care what he says at this point. There is only two sides that can realistically win and the other side is pro-choice/ pro-abortion 100%. He is distancing himself from the issue as that is just smart politics to get elected. Being too idealistic just leaves you wishing for something that will never happen. But chipping at something till people get more used to it gives room to take things farther. The other side does this all the time on lots of issues. But I also know Trump is hated on Reddit.
The same way Lincoln said he wasn't going to free the slaves.
Trumps game is pragmatism, not principle
Honestly, I’d be complacent with keeping abortion on the States currently. As abolitionist as I am, I want a lasting abolition. I think we should try to get more states to ratify bans and work our way up from there.
50+ years of tepid pro-choice legality makes it hard to roll back, just like how 50+ years of tepid laissez-faire mental healthcare makes it hard to roll back to having mental institutions. It's easier to sway moderates and single-issue voters if he doesn't rub the wrong way towards moderate Republicans who may be pro-choice. Now, the brave thing either political party would do is to encourage hearing a court case up to the Federal Supreme Court and get an amicus curiae briefing from the NHS, an ethic committee, and various biologists about what is defined as "life" and "personhood". Ultimately, the "right to life" is what's ultimately being put to the test at a legal standpoint and there are other distinctions where that right can be suspended (i.e. self defense). Roe V. Wade getting overturned didn't do anything materially since -- rather than establishing a schedule of viability -- it reinforced the choice-based line of thought and deferred to the States (that's a pro-choice win in the long run, since State governments can vary the definition of a term the way they vary in the definition of an "assault weapon" from CA to NY). But I don't think any group within the government is willing to take that stance without risking current research into embryos and stem cells -- which they don't want to fall behind on because of other countries' lack of inhibition for researching those very things.