If Hillary Clinton Makes Also Makes A Transparently Insincere Claim To Be Pro-Life Can Catholics Vote For Her

[Amppax]

13 hours ago, dUSt said:

Hope you watched the debate last night when they talked about abortion. I don't remember any other presidential candidate ever come out and say straight up "I will appoint pro-life judges".

 

I did, and I stand by my criticisms of Trump.

[PhuturePriest]

Trump's stand on abortion was half-hearted and a missed opportunity. He said it was wrong to tear babies apart in the ninth month, but he didn't make the connection that this applies to other months. Further, when repeatedly asked directly by the moderator whether he would try to overturn Roe V Wade, he dodged and said given his choices it would go to the States. He refused to directly say he would try to overturn Roe. He had a good moment at the end of the topic, and I'm not trying to discredit any good said, but it wasn't exactly a courageous unequivocal stand for the pro-life movement.

[dUSt]

Just now, PhuturePriest said:

when repeatedly asked directly by the moderator whether he would try to overturn Roe V Wade, he dodged and said given his choices it would go to the States. He refused to directly say he would try to overturn Roe.

You do realize that the result of overturning Roe vs Wade would be that it would go back to the states, right? In other words, in order for it to go back to states, Roe vs Wade would have to be overturned. The one time Trump restrains himself by using safe language which says the same thing as "overturn roe vs wade" and he gets slammed for it. Haha.

[PhuturePriest]

7 hours ago, dUSt said:

You do realize that the result of overturning Roe vs Wade would be that it would go back to the states, right? In other words, in order for it to go back to states, Roe vs Wade would have to be overturned. The one time Trump restrains himself by using safe language which says the same thing as "overturn roe vs wade" and he gets slammed for it. Haha.

The one time Trump *should* use strong language and unequivocally condemn something, and he doesn't do it.

The question becomes, why? He was using strong language when speaking about the 2nd amendment and foreign policy, so why not abortion? It's either he's too afraid of what people think about it (in which case we can't really trust him to do much for pro-life legislation), or he doesn't care about it and it's way down on his list (in which the same principle applies).

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The one time Trump *should* use strong language and unequivocally condemn something, and he doesn't do it.

The question becomes, why? He was using strong language when speaking about the 2nd amendment and foreign policy, so why not abortion? It's either he's too afraid of what people think about it (in which case we can't really trust him to do much for pro-life legislation), or he doesn't care about it and it's way down on his list (in which the same principle applies).

It is because abortion is so strongly coded as a woman's right by the vast majority of people.  They see it as an unfortunate necessity, but the lesser of having a child in poverty, with an infirmity, or having to struggle to raise them.   Coming out strongly against abortion is political suicide.    Being strongly anti-abortion is severely damaging Rubio now in Florida, and he is running against a very weak candidate.

There is bad, and there is worse.   Being pro life political citizens requires more than voting for president.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The one time Trump *should* use strong language and unequivocally condemn something, and he doesn't do it.

The question becomes, why? He was using strong language when speaking about the 2nd amendment and foreign policy, so why not abortion? It's either he's too afraid of what people think about it (in which case we can't really trust him to do much for pro-life legislation), or he doesn't care about it and it's way down on his list (in which the same principle applies).

He stated he would appoint pro-life judges, overturning Roe Vs Wade, moving it back to the states. I guess that's not as strong as it could be but it's not really weak either. And his condemnation of Late term abortion was strong.

"Trump: I think it's terrible 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.

Now, you can say that that's okay, and Hillary can say that that's okay, but it's not okay with me. Because based on what she's saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, only the final day. And that's not acceptable.

[...]

Trump: And honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said (eta: describing late term abortion), doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth, nobody has that."

Source: www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13336894/third-presidential-debate-live-transcript-clinton-trump

[Amppax]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but here's something to consider: http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/20/trump-presidency-hurt-pro-life-more-than-hillary/

[mariahLVzJP2]

Wow, I'm pretty shocked that Catholics are here on a Catholic site defending Hillary. Her pro-abortion agenda and ties with planned parenthood are so dangerous to society. 

[LittleWaySoul]

No one's defending Hillary; they're saying why Trump is bad. There's a difference. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

No!

 

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, LittleWaySoul said:

No one's defending Hillary; they're saying why Trump is bad. There's a difference. 

It really isn't a difficult distinction. 

[mariahLVzJP2]

Donald Trump may act like a jerk but he's not even near as bad/corrupt as Hillary and her party! Hello Wikileaks!

I will pray that Catholics and others vote for a candidate that doesn't murder the innocent. That is the most important issue.... life.

[mariahLVzJP2]

And no I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was pro-life. She's still evil and corrupt on  many other moral issues.

Edited October 22, 2016 by mariahLVzJP2

[KnightofChrist]

45 minutes ago, Amppax said:

It really isn't a difficult distinction. 

Sure it is, when one side offers little to no criticisms of Clinton but continually criticisms of Trump. Clinton strongly stood up in favor of abortion through out all nine months and I see little to no criticisms for her from those who've taken a anti-trump but pro-life position on pm.

After seeing Clinton defend abortion for all nine months and partial birth abortion I think I'll print out the article you posted and line my puppy dog's crapper with it. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[LittleWaySoul]

16 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Sure it is, when one side offers little to no criticisms of Clinton but continually criticisms of Trump. Clinton strongly stood up in favor of abortion through out all nine months and I see little to no criticisms for her from those who've taken a anti-trump but pro-life position on pm.

After seeing Clinton defend abortion for all nine months and partial birth abortion I think I'll print out the article you posted and line my puppy dog's crapper with it. 

What do you want from us? Hillary smells of elderberries, Trump smells of elderberries, neither is good for the pro-life movement. 

If you want more of my own criticisms of Hillary I can give you plenty. The reason I and others may seem to be pro-Hillary is that we don't see Trump as easily being the lesser of two evils, so we respond to those who think that he is. This election is not cut-and-dry; I respect people who are voting for Trump because they genuinely believe he's the better option, but I have a difficult time sympathizing with people who paint this as anything other than a horrible election and Trump as anything other than a despicable person. It's possible to vote for Trump without needing to justify every last thing about him.