Skip to comments.Donald Trump Falters on Question Over Privacy, Abortion
Posted on 04/19/2011 12:59:25 PM PDT by julieee
Donald Trump Falters on Question Over Privacy, Abortion
Washington, DC -- Businessman Donald Trump faltered when responding to a series of questions on abortion that saw NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie attempt to challenge him on the so-called right to privacy the Supreme Court invented to create a "right" to abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
The more I read this, the more I think that Trump was simply outing the questioner on using the euphemism of “privacy” when he meant “baby killing”.
I won’t ‘fire’ Donald Trump over this one interview (he has his attributes) but as I’ve stated here (and elsewhere) I don’t trust him in the sense that I believe Trump’s conservative stance is very shallow, at best and possibly deceptive, at worst. I’ll stick with a proven conservative, Sarah Palin.
Trump has had a lot of bad hair days. Just like Romney. Two bad hair guys who are more liberal than they are conservative and both run-of-the-mill liars and political whores. Either will say anything to get ahead. Just working the system the only way they know how. Charlatans.
Jim also expressed the following just before a well-deserved zot of a Trump supporter and Mark Levin basher:
Mark Levin is a friend of mine. Hes got more conservatism in his little finger than you or Trump have in your entire lib troll bodies and youve been bashing him for days. Get off the forum, troll!
Jim Robinson has a lot of experience in these matters and he knows when a candidate is a liberal in spite of lip service to Conservative principles.
I believe Mr. Trump is a business man period. What will further his business interests, he’s for...
I agree. I love how the left uses those euphemisms such as "a woman's right to choose" or "a woman's right to privacy" when they really mean "a woman's right to kill an unwanted baby".
I agree that women should have a right to privacy and a right to choose certain things; as long as it does not involve taking an innocent life.
Here is a response I posted elsewhere, and a Trump response during that interview.
Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"
Just how is that a stumble? Trump disagreed with the SCOTUS bogus and concocted justification for legalizing abortion. So what if he didn't immediately recognize that the "right to privacy" was the bogus excuse used by the court. He disagreed with it!
The constitution does imply and guarantee a right to privacy in several places (no unreasonable searches and seizures, religious freedom and others), but how many would stretch that to mean a right to kill a developing baby? Trump didn't.
I think Trump was using the same tactic that I do when some lefty says “right to choose”.
I say “choose WHAT exactly?”
What to eat for lunch? What shoes to wear? What car to drive?
Oh, you mean to “choose to kill an inconvenient baby”, OK, now that we’ve defined what you mean, we can discuss the issue.
In the meantime, I'm sure Obama has hired a few "hit men" to go after Trump...Like a dozen IRS guys to begin with....
This discussion illustrates a serious problem that right to life conservatives will have to deal with in election politics. Inconvenient facts: less abortion will probably mean more low income, welfare babies; Republicans have been voting against WIC (which helps improved nutrition and presumably health of mothers and infants and less need for subsidized health care); conservatives also seem to be against birth control and contraception which should also result in increased numbers of low income, welfare babies and seekers of abortion; in general there seems to be a lack of Republican/conservative support for post birth babies.
This leads many to consider the whole anti abortion issue to be a covert effort to increase the numbers of the poor and reduce the independence of women. Sounds something like Sharia law. How to reconcile these logical contradictions will be a major task if Republicans/conservatives are to win more than their base.
Cut from the same cloth as Mitt Romney.
Yep, they'll be going after any potential candidate they perceive as a possible threat to their precious Barry. There's another thread around about a big damaging, tell all book from a former Palin aide that's soon to be released.
Lots of BS based on the false premise that we can’t possibly return morality to the culture as a factor.
The NUMBER ONE cause of poverty is sex before marriage.
If it is an unavoidable consequence for a behavior choice, there will be less of that behavior choice made.
Leftists assume an immoral culture, because they WANT an immoral culture. They also assume that people do not react to incentives.
Your post does both as well.
Cause of poverty, sex before marriage.
Alas you are right, but there are studies (I know some will argue they are biased) which indicate that abstinence only education results in more unplanned pregnancies than forms of education that include contraception. A recent tragic case caught my attention. A 25 year old mother drove her car with 4 children into the Hudson River. Only her 10 year old son survived. The other three including the 11 months old baby died. The father of the 3 was not married to the mother and did not live with her.
Some questions here: what help was a 14 year old pregnant girl given to help her keep the baby, but avoid repeating the mistake? What became of the first father? What help was a mother with 4 children including an 11 month old baby being given since the father was not living with her? I think the other children wer 2 and 5. Would this situation have been avoided if she had had an abortion or birth control education? How many conservative white churches are reaching out to help these kinds of mothers? I know that at age 32, with one colicy baby, an unsupportive husband, and averaging about 4 hours of sleep a night for weeks at a time, I felt very unable to continue at times. I don’t know what would have happened if I had not avoided getting pregnant again for several years.
He basically botched the same question Couric stumped Palin with.
I like this article but the headline is stupid. He says he’s prolife and that’s good enough for me. Privacy- yeah it’s called the 4th and 5th amendments.
So let me get this straight: Liberal feminism ditched babies in the womb because they would prevent women from engaging in consequence-free, random sex like men. Given that over half of the children thus killed are women, liberal feminism is now saying that the path to independence for women is to kill millions of little girls. So if we’re talking logical contradictions here, don’t you think the liberal feminists have a lock on that market? As opposed, say to those pesky conservatives who want to discourage our culture from getting used to murdering the inconvenient? And what does Sharia say about dismemberment?
Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. That’s why he fumbled so badly. He hasn’t worked up a script yet. It’s a totally new position for him, plucked out of the ari for political gain. He’s never seen the debate before, probably because he has no friends that he’s discussed it with to any depth. He’s fakin’ it. This is a very scary man to have in charge of picking the next few SC justices.
I wish Trump would just shut up.
Sharia is definitely for dismemberment of the right hand of anyone caught stealing. This is basically a death sentence in tribal society, as eating from the communal pot is done with the right hand as the left is used for bathroom functions. They also favor stoning.
Um, I guess you didn’t get my point. I don’t have specific numbers, but I’m willing to bet the farm that all the Sharia-based dismemberments that ever occurred in the history of the world don’t come anywhere near the number of dismemberments performed by abortion butchers. Your “concern” for the GOP’s strong stand against the brutal dismemberment and murder of unborn boys and girls is, at best, absurd.
However, I understand you have a personal story that informs your belief. I too have a personal story, one that supplements my theoretical beliefs with the grit of truth lived. I have seen the sad ending and the happy ending, the destruction of innocent life and the preservation of innocent life. And I can tell you this, that nothing is more destructive to a society than teaching its members that life is cheap, that might makes right, that there is no consequence to the abandonment of the moral guardrails set in place by those who went before us. That is a faster, surer path to poverty and dissolution than having to deal with finding a way to feed that extra, little mouth. It’s not their fault they’re here, and they should not be punished for it. In fact, sometimes a challenge like that is just what a person needs to learn to grow up and become a responsible, contributing member of society. Even if they’re a grandparent. God bless the little children and preserve them from becoming victims of cold-hearted political calculation.
“...having to deal with finding a way to feed that extra little mouth.”
First of all, regarding that extra mouth. Why is the GOP so against the WIC program that does exactly that, and moreover is cost effective in that it reduces other costs borne by taxpayers like emergency room visits, prolonged hospitalization for premature births, expensive special education programs, etc. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the later costs involving the criminal justice system. I hope you and others you know have been lobbying Congress to restore these critical funds.
You mention my personal story. I cannot even begin to imagine the strength needed to take care of several preschool children and an infant in a condition of poverty, and without the presence of another caring and helpful adult. What outreach are conservative churches making to help women in that condition who have chosen not to abort, or for whom abortion has been made too difficult. Preborns may live, but for God’s sake in what condition, and to face what future??
A couple of quick thoughts, because I do have other irons in the fire.
First, it is just as Paul Ryan predicted. The Democrats have demagogued the proposed budget cuts for maximum political effect without any regard for accuracy. The proposed cuts are broad-based, and not at all targeted specifically to women and children. The proposed WIC cuts represent only 10% or less of the overall budget for the program, depending on who you listen to, and are not being treated any differently than the other government programs under review.
Here’s the deal. We really are broke and getting broker at an alarming rate. If you’ve seen the debt service curves, its enough to make the hair on the back of your neck rise. I’m serious. So any government program that can be pressured into making more efficient use of resources should do so. The problem is not the desire to help the needy. The devil is always in the details. And government agencies have a rightly deserved reputation for running inefficiently. Why? Because they can. Water always seeks the lowest level, and people, sadly, are not different. Remove the motive to operate efficiently, and inefficiency there will be. Women and children will not be served poorly just because money will be spent more efficiently.
Second, the premise of the WIC program is wrong. The government should never have got into the charity business in the first place. We have the most caring, charitable culture on the planet, bar none. I love American generosity. But the government was never designed to take on such a great burden. It has a specific, well-defined constitutional role, and it is supposed to stay within that role to give the private sector the maximum freedom it needs to realize its full potential in terms of uplifting everyone, including both the successful and the poor and the weak.
And I have a personal connection with this. My dad was an educator, first a teacher, then a principal, in Chicago, in the inner city. His work there, some four decades, was trashed by the Chicago political class who wanted to perpetuate the dependency of the people he was helping. How was he helping? He created an educational plan that rewarded success and refused to reward failure. His school began generating class after class of ghetto children with very high academic performance, who were then able to go to law school and medical school and break the cycle of poverty.
And that’s the point. The Democrat party, as a whole, doesn’t give a rat’s behind about actually helping people get out from under what’s holding them back. You hear that statement from the conservative talking heads, and maybe you think its just a talking point, but I know it’s true, because I’ve seen it up close and personal. My dad’s program threatened their control, so they shut him down. But what do they encourage in place of success by merit? Government largess, a fawning dependency on the public feeding trough, the exchange of dignity and true self-worth for the security of a slavish dependency.
The deliberate, cynical creation of a dependent class is a profound moral wrong, and there is a positive virtue in seeking ways to end it over time. That is what is at the core of the Republican budgetary agenda, and it deserves better that to be misreported and twisted to score cheap political points.
As for what churches do to support young mothers and their children, you have to be living under a rock or living on Planet Kos to not know how big the project is within the churches to save both the children and their mothers. Large numbers of pregnancy resource centers and many other charitable organizations exist to serve, from private funds, the needs of pregnant moms and new mothers. There’s probably one near you, if you know how to look for them.
The problem with private charity is that it depends to a large extent on private wealth, and private wealth does not do well when the government is drawing private resources into it at ever increasing rates that are simply not sustainable, acting not unlike a black hole, sucking everything into its ever more powerful vortex till nothing near it can escape, not even light.
But here, at this place in time and history, we have a shot at escaping that black hole that we may not have in just a few short years. And a small sliver of money cut from the ballooning budget of government sponsored charity is only a small but necessary step in the direction of empowering greater private charity, through the stimulation of investment and the growth of greater private wealth. That’s where a true lifting from poverty has its greatest hope, and why such demagoguery as the Democrats are now deploying is really so against the cause of those who truly need our help.