A commenter at Dalrock’s tires of explaining the reason for all the lies that were exposed when Donald Trump make the amateur mistake of joining the Pro-Life movement in earnest…
I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision. As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.
I, like Zippy and GKC, was surprised at the scorn which was poured on Donald Trump by Pro-Life groups and leadership. I would have previously confessed to be Pro-Life, Amateurs, the lot of us. Personally, it is embarrassing to contemplate my rube-ness regarding the Pro-Lifer movement. Days later it would dawn on me that the filthiness Pro-Lifers bathe in is even worse than what prompted my initial shock!
I take it as fact that Donald Trump switched his allegiance from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life and that this was a matter of political prudence for him. I have no problem with that. If someone does the right thing for personal reward, then he has at least worldly wisdom and deserves reward as long as he actually does the right thing.
Having said that: It’s possible that Trump, should he become President, has no intention of changing one dot of abortion law in the US. My suspicion is that Trump has no personal convictions either way. If that’s true, then it should be easier for “real” Pro-Life politicians to entice him to sign-off on some anti-abortion legislation in exchange for support from them on other policies. But I simply don’t know. Regardless, here’s what happened:
- Trump decides to run for President as a Republican and claims to be Pro-Life.
- Ted Cruz, “Socially Conservative” groups, and the whole breadth of media call bullshit on Trump and accuse him of mere politicking. Another way to explain Trump’s conversion would be to call it adopting an intellectual position rather than naked emotional response. For whatever reason: He thought about it, and changed his mind (correctly) to anti-abortion
- Trump, because his conversion was intellectual and not instinctual, got harassed into a logical corner by an openly pro-choice Roman Catholic journalist and confessed the inescapably true argument that the commission of crime is itself a crime, and therefore hypothetically it should be met with “some form of punishment”.
- Cruz and Co. pounce on Trump out of both instinct and political expediency; trashing truth and justice in the process.
To me, that is pure monstrosity. They disgust me. Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic. What’s important to the Pro-Lifers is conservation of the politically feminist pro-choice bathwater in which they’ve become comfortable; no matter that it’s a tepid 98.6 degrees and red as the Nile on the Passover.
That is to say that I have always been against abortion and thought it to be murder. And, yes, I have fought it personally; against some other Roman Catholics, no less.
 Welcome to the whorehouse of mirrors.
I always assumed that the “women are innocent” position has been a tactic to soften women’s hearts since they are the ones making the abortion decision. Pro-lifers see the saving even one baby as a victory. But I was surprised by how negative their reaction was so maybe you and zippy are right.
Mourdock lost and all the Cucks said he should have taken Trump’s position. McConnell and Ryan funded PP in the omnibus – where is ANY condemnation? Bush did NOTHING. No defunding, no restrictions.
Did not know about footnote two. I…just…giving up would be easy. It is not our way. But slogging through without being able to purge the system is frustrating.
Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known
Yes, the concern about foetal abortion is wholly political. If it were serious, they’d be better about culture at a more municipal level as the Mahometans and Orthodox Hassidic Jews do even while these ethnicities live in the cities of supposedly unsurmountably degraded Western culture. They’re so rooted in their convictions that they are able to live directly alongside other ethnic groups and still maintain their, by 2016, radically more traditional institutions. I don’t know if Christians are up for toughing it out in the cities anymore, and seems like most really traditional groups such as Anabaptists have found their place in rural areas. Neverthelesss, cities should not be given up so easily as they’re the seats of power and for the long-term goals of changing the culture to be more amicable they look indispensable. Perhaps, the luke-warm Christian flavoured culture is too seductive, going to have to see for myself though. Homeschoolers are the few ones that take it seriously, as far as I know.