How do you or did perceive candidate Trump's position on abortion

[Jazman]

Trump is pro-life in a realpolitik sense.

The problem is a lot of pro-life political activists want to find some kind of moral clarity in the political realm. They’re looking in the wrong place.

We don't agree often, but I agree with this observation. I think you're spot on with "they're looking in the wrong place."

[HondurasKeiser]

Trump is pro-life in a realpolitik sense.

The problem is a lot of pro-life political activists want to find some kind of moral clarity in the political realm. They’re looking in the wrong place.

So to be clear, we shouldn’t want murder in all its forms to be outlawed?

We should, but also realise the political reality that it’s just not going to happen with the moral clarity that we wish it would and believe it should.

I mean, the standard pro-lifers wanted in states like mine was a 6 week “hearbeat” law. I have a hard time seeing how chemical abortions from 2-6 weeks are somehow OK. Yet somehow they conceded that as the political reality.

We should continue to call out murder is wrong, but also recognise governments aren’t offering a lot of clarity on what murder is. It used to be OK to murder slaves. It’s still OK to murder enemies of the state with drone strike assassinations. It’s somewhat OK to murder a baby depending on where it’s done and how old the baby is. In other countries and eras, it’s been OK to murder people depending on their ethnic background or their religion. In times past in Central America, it was OK to murder people if they thought the gods would consider it an acceptable sacrifice.

What is to be done with such governments? I believe the right thing is to preach the gospel of peace. If Trump or Harris want to ask a Christian believer, we can tell them.

I agree with your last statement completely. What confuses me is your thought about moral clarity in the political realm. Politics is a process of compromise in pursuit of moral clarity. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable for pro-life advocates to accept a "6-week ban" compromise, realizing that it's the best viable option whilst pushing for a total ban in the future because of course, murder inside the 6-week window is still just that and our law should seek to clarify it as such. A pragmatic and strategic approach is what is needed in the pursuit of ending abortion, not a retreat from first principles.

What strikes me as misguided about your above examples is that, with the exception of baby-murder (which isn't an example but rather the topic) and drone strikes (a horror too), our law has in fact clarified that any human sacrifice, slave murder or genocide is in fact illegal, full stop. Depending on the issue it may have taken a while to reach that clarity but that's where we are now, blessedly so. Why should the attempt to outlaw baby-murder be anything less than clarifying?

Indeed, your above post looks strikingly similar to Ken's (personally opposed, public ally agnostic), Ernie's (focus on hearts and minds) and Jazman's (ridicule Republicans for being so myopic). What's more, as I read back through this thread, your posts at the beginning don't seem to align with your posts at the end. I'm left wandering whither Josh on his thoughts, not about the morality of abortion per se, but about what he thinks the law ought to permit or prohibit.

[HondurasKeiser]

Trump is pro-life in a realpolitik sense.

The problem is a lot of pro-life political activists want to find some kind of moral clarity in the political realm. They’re looking in the wrong place.

We don't agree often, but I agree with this observation. I think you're spot on with "they're looking in the wrong place."

Imagine if the abolitionists had been so circumspect and private in their pursuit of moral clarity around the legality of slavery?

[HondurasKeiser]

Trump is pro-life in a realpolitik sense.

The problem is a lot of pro-life political activists want to find some kind of moral clarity in the political realm. They’re looking in the wrong place.

So to be clear, we shouldn’t want murder in all its forms to be outlawed?

What Josh said yes.
So why turn people away from Trump and towards the party who actually promotes abortion even up to the time of birth, ,& some after birth,? Don't play into the liberal hands at their tactic of trying to make Trump look pro-abortion- they are doing this on purpose to eliminate voters that can't see the difference. They truly are very cunning.

I think it's good to remember that "the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart."

[Valerie]

So to be clear, we shouldn’t want murder in all its forms to be outlawed?

What Josh said yes.
So why turn people away from Trump and towards the party who actually promotes abortion even up to the time of birth, ,& some after birth,? Don't play into the liberal hands at their tactic of trying to make Trump look pro-abortion- they are doing this on purpose to eliminate voters that can't see the difference. They truly are very cunning.

I think it's good to remember that "the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart."

I realize but I cannot accept one party's position on many things and if you vote, you pray to discern which best represents what's important to you.

[Josh]

I agree with your last statement completely. What confuses me is your thought about moral clarity in the political realm. Politics is a process of compromise in pursuit of moral clarity. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable for pro-life advocates to accept a "6-week ban" compromise, realizing that it's the best viable option whilst pushing for a total ban in the future because of course, murder inside the 6-week window is still just that and our law should seek to clarify it as such. A pragmatic and strategic approach is what is needed in the pursuit of ending abortion, not a retreat from first principles.

From a pragmatic point of view, a 12 week ban + exceptions to viability is far more politically palatable and is indeed what Trump has supported. Yet the pro life activists are aghast at Trump’s politically pragmatic position.

I guess I don’t really “get” what the pro life political activists want. They seem to want to lose, and to lose over and over. The first real win they’ve had in a long time is Dobbs.

What strikes me as misguided about your above examples is that, with the exception of baby-murder (which isn't an example but rather the topic) and drone strikes (a horror too), our law has in fact clarified that any human sacrifice, slave murder or genocide is in fact illegal, full stop. Depending on the issue it may have taken a while to reach that clarity but that's where we are now, blessedly so. Why should the attempt to outlaw baby-murder be anything less than clarifying?

I’m not sure I’d agree the law has clarified that. We have plenty of slave labour and devaluation of human life in producing cheap imported goods and commodities. In fact, it’s basically built into the economy now.

Indeed, your above post looks strikingly similar to Ken's (personally opposed, public ally agnostic), Ernie's (focus on hearts and minds) and Jazman's (ridicule Republicans for being so myopic). What's more, as I read back through this thread, your posts at the beginning don't seem to align with your posts at the end. I'm left wandering whither Josh on his thoughts, not about the morality of abortion per se, but about what he thinks the law ought to permit or prohibit.

Well, I don’t think politics is the right way for Christians to seek moral clarity. But if it were?

#1. Then Christians would need to seek pragmatic compromises and slowly gain political power but without alarming their opposition.

#2. Gradually institute a more and more moral state.

#3. Use state power to choke off opposition, make it socially unacceptable to hold opposition viewpoints, harass them using tax law, make them unemployable, etc.

#4. Effectively impose an authoritarian regime dedicated to crushing their enemies.

#5. Implement 1-4 in an ongoing fashion to make dissent against these policy goals impossible.

Note that the above happened as it concerns slavery. The question is if a Christian should really be so involved in setting up an authoritarian state even if it is for “good” ends.

[Ken]

I agree with your last statement completely. What confuses me is your thought about moral clarity in the political realm. Politics is a process of compromise in pursuit of moral clarity. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable for pro-life advocates to accept a "6-week ban" compromise, realizing that it's the best viable option whilst pushing for a total ban in the future because of course, murder inside the 6-week window is still just that and our law should seek to clarify it as such. A pragmatic and strategic approach is what is needed in the pursuit of ending abortion, not a retreat from first principles.

From a pragmatic point of view, a 12 week ban + exceptions to viability is far more politically palatable and is indeed what Trump has supported. Yet the pro life activists are aghast at Trump’s politically pragmatic position.

I guess I don’t really “get” what the pro life political activists want. They seem to want to lose, and to lose over and over. The first real win they’ve had in a long time is Dobbs.

But as you and Trump have pointed out, this is a state issue and a 12 week ban is not on the table in Florida. There is a binary choice in front of Florida voters. To keep the existing 6 week ban passed by the legislature or adopt a constitutional amendment that enshrines abortion rights in the state constitution.

That is the choice facing Florida voters in November and that is the choice facing Trump who is still apparently a Florida voter despite being a convicted felon. It is perfectly fair game to ask Trump how he intends to vote on that constitutional amendment. 12 weeks is not one of the choices.

If Trump wanted to propose a national 12 week ban in Congress that would supersede all the 6 week bans in various states he would be free to do so. But he has come forth with no such proposals whatsoever.

[Ken]

Well, I don’t think politics is the right way for Christians to seek moral clarity. But if it were?

#1. Then Christians would need to seek pragmatic compromises and slowly gain political power but without alarming their opposition.

#2. Gradually institute a more and more moral state.

#3. Use state power to choke off opposition, make it socially unacceptable to hold opposition viewpoints, harass them using tax law, make them unemployable, etc.

#4. Effectively impose an authoritarian regime dedicated to crushing their enemies.

#5. Implement 1-4 in an ongoing fashion to make dissent against these policy goals impossible.

Note that the above happened as it concerns slavery. The question is if a Christian should really be so involved in setting up an authoritarian state even if it is for “good” ends.

That is not remotely what happened with respect to slavery in this country. Unless you are talking about the imposition of slavery rather than its abolition. Slavery was certainly imposed through authoritarian means.

Slavery was abolished through the 13 Amendment which was passed democratically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteent ... nstitution

[Szdfan]

Slavery was abolished through the 13 Amendment which was passed democratically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteent ... nstitution

After the entire Civil War, of course.

[Josh]

Well, I don’t think politics is the right way for Christians to seek moral clarity. But if it were?

#1. Then Christians would need to seek pragmatic compromises and slowly gain political power but without alarming their opposition.

#2. Gradually institute a more and more moral state.

#3. Use state power to choke off opposition, make it socially unacceptable to hold opposition viewpoints, harass them using tax law, make them unemployable, etc.

#4. Effectively impose an authoritarian regime dedicated to crushing their enemies.

#5. Implement 1-4 in an ongoing fashion to make dissent against these policy goals impossible.

Note that the above happened as it concerns slavery. The question is if a Christian should really be so involved in setting up an authoritarian state even if it is for “good” ends.

That is not remotely what happened with respect to slavery in this country. Unless you are talking about the imposition of slavery rather than its abolition. Slavery was certainly imposed through authoritarian means.

Slavery was abolished through the 13 Amendment which was passed democratically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteent ... nstitution

And then a brutal authoritarian state was required to impose it.

Not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing. But reshaping society’s morals requires being willing to wield the sword and the judge’s gavel to utterly annihilate, humiliate, kill, and starve your enemies who might oppose those morals.