At an open-air town hall of sorts, broadcast by the Today Show, Donald Trump came out strongly in favor of abortion exceptions – rape, incest, and life of the mother. That he did this so publicly, yet many are unaware, strikes me as odd – until I remember that the Trump machine is ‘yuge’. Even previously (somewhat) conservative information outlets are running defense on anything that would show their ‘savior’ in his true light. Fox News, the Drudge Report, and even Breitbart are in the tank, as the adage goes.
The irrefutable proof of his pro-life weakness, however, is in Donald Trump the candidate’s own words and prior positions. Give a listen to the video included in this article (at the ten minute mark). If that isn’t enough, give a read to Brent Bozell: An Open Letter to Conservative Friends Supporting Donald Trump. Those who are still in denial after that are on their own and don’t want to know the truth.
Elsewhere I have written about how Trump, ‘absolutely’ wants the Republican Party Platform to include rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions. When compelled to confirm his abortion exceptions, Trump responded, “Absolutely, for the three exceptions.”
A Danger to Those Conceived In Rape
As true pro-life advocates have always maintained, this line of thinking is dangerous for the personhood of people conceived in rape. That someone in the public eye would voice such an opinion is problematic but especially when the person is running for President of the United States.
A Questionable ‘Savior’
I’ve been in a quandary, trying to understand how otherwise orthodox, believing Christians can be so enamored by someone whose beliefs are in such conflict with their own professed ones. When I finally found someone to answer this question the response left me speechless. “He’s the savior of the United States, sent from God.”
What the what??
Yes, you read that correctly. Upon further questioning and a reminder that we already have a Savior and He’s coming back, the second response further floored me. “God uses sinners to do great deeds all the time.”
Divergent Party Platforms
I give up! That type of spiritual blindness cannot be argued against. But just in case some of those who are still discerning have an open mind, I’d like to reiterate a few points. For example, take a look at the divergent directions of both parties concerning human life:
· Strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade
· Invest in stem cell and other medical research
· Pursue embryonic stem cell research
· Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay
· Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right
· Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding
· Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals
· Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
· Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment
· Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action
There is a vast difference in the approach to the sanctity of life between the two parties. The solidification of these opposing positions, one a Culture of Death the other a Culture of Life, have been hard fought. It is up to pro-life citizens to defend the progress made.
Hard Won Ground, Worth Defending
The Republican Party developed the platform it now has by winning many hard-fought battles against the Culture of Death. People like Rebecca Kiessling, a lawyer and pro-life advocate, are still manning the battle stations – one person, one politician at a time. She has a personal story that demands her public actions. Kiessling, herself, is one of the 1% - those conceived in rape.
Those innocent victims, who along with their victim moms are struggling to deal with the violent hand that has been dealt, seem out of sight and out of mind. But when you stand and look such a person in the eye, it’s much more difficult to tell them that they should have been aborted.
Weak Representation Equals Weak Laws
Weak representation of the unborn begets weak laws. When politicians, or society, indicate that an entire class of people is less worthy of life the Culture of Death wins. With a foot in the door, they can further claim that the value of life is relative – dependent on certain criteria. In essence, we are then admitting that there may just be some instances where abortion is justified. Yet, if we choose that position, we are also saying that someone other than God can decide human value. Who is equipped to make that decision? What will the criteria be? What if someone else doesn’t agree?
The Pandora’s Box this opens, weakens the pro-life stance and allows other qualifications in. We already see how some measure the worth of human life. Commodification of embryos, aborted baby parts, and even human eggs is a thriving ‘business’. Others abort according to gender, genetic deviations, and budgetary concerns. How cheap we’ve allowed life to become!
Electing politicians who don’t stand solidly in the ranks of those who are 100% pro-life only endangers more lives. It undermines hard-fought boundaries and feeds into a relativism that is morally bankrupt. Don’t fall for the deception. Having a’ pro-life except’ outlook isn’t pro-life at all. It’s pro-choice with fewer choices. When you fool yourself into this line of thinking, you are administering the death penalty on humans who have a God-given right to life - as do we all.
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" ~Mark 8:36