politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump: If abortion is banned, there has to be some form of punishment for women who do it
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/ ... unishment-for-women-who-do-it/
Published: Mar 30, 2016
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2016-03-30 17:16:58 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 41075
Comments: 274
Charles Cooke calls this an ideological Turing test, i.e. a question whose answer reveals how plausible it is that Trump really is who he claims to be. The standard answer from nearly all serious pro-lifers is that it’s the abortionist, not his patient, who should be sanctioned if and when abortion is banned. The March of Life explains why: Ted Cruz, when he’s inevitably asked about this now, will give some variation of that same response. Trump, whom his conservative critics suspect of being an opportunist on abortion rather than committed to the cause, went a different route. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head here: He knows, as a political matter, that he can’t let Cruz get to his right on abortion. Republicans will let him slide on a lot — a lot — but if he gives them reason to think he’s BSing them on an issue at the very core of social conservatism, it could give Cruz the break he needs to take off. And so, when he gets the question from Matthews about what to do with women who insist on having abortions in a hypothetical future where the practice is banned, he goes with his gut — and his gut is “stay to the right.” So … sure, let’s punish women for abortion. This is the message the party’s carrying into the general election against the first woman major-party nominee, huh? By a guy who’s already having major problems polling among women, no less. It’s easy to understand how an amateur would stumble into this answer, writes Matt Lewis, but why would you want to nominate an amateur? Yet these political compromises are necessary in order to cobble together a palatable and defensible (if admittedly inconsistent) public policy position that might someday actually be able to win the argument in mainstream America. Part of the goal is to remove the ability for pro-choicers to demagogue the issue by scaring vulnerable women. Now, thanks to Trump, that’s back on the table. Trump’s already trying to walk it back even though the townhall with Matthews from which this was clipped hasn’t aired yet: — Sarah McCammon NPR (@sarahmccammon) March 30, 2016 Hillary’s already attacking him over it. So is Team Cruz, as you’ll see in the second clip below. Trump can run from it but it’s on tape and every down-ballot Republican will wear it now if he’s the nominee. And the best part, as one Twitter pal said, is that Trump will eventually (“eventually” as in “probably within the next few hours”) deny that he ever said it to begin with. Still think this is all part of a master strategy or could it be that he really is winging it? — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) March 30, 2016 Poster Comment: This will keep Vannity and Coulter and the other Mini-Me's busy Trumpsplaining it away for the next few days. “Mr. Trump’s comment today is completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.” In truth, like the notion that there should be exceptions for rape and incest, the notion that only the abortion doctor (not the woman having the abortion) should face penalties, is inconsistent with the notion that “abortion is murder.” #Trump campaign issues brief statement on #abortion: pic.twitter.com/jJFhzmHP5W Cruz campaign: Cruz focuses on punishing those who perform abortions, not women who get them https://t.co/GRrUbWpzGE https://t.co/7am5Tcd7AG The next Trump scandal.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-194) not displayed.
.
.
.
#195. To: TooConservative (#190)
I'm just splaining from the actual transcript, link included.
He'll cut his membership in half to spite his nose. Yeah, it seems they want an echo chamber.
Moderator X is hacking Stone's list as we chit-chat. All will be well, soon.
I'm glad to see that you're still pinging sneakypete.
It is not a trick question, no matter how many times you bold or italicize or underline various portions. If abortion is a crime or if abortion is murder, the law does have to mete out consequences for breaking those laws. If you listen closely, Matthews says, "Ten years or ten cents or what?" by which he meant would it be fines or jail time. Then Trump fell into his trap as Matthews said "For the woman?". And the trap snapped shut. You really should consider why you're supporting a candidate that can be so easily tricked by Tingly Chris because he isn't that smart. Chrissy led him like a lamb to slaughter while deflecting Trump's jabs that Chrissy was a bad Catholic.
For what little my opinion is worth, Pete is one of LF's finest posters.
You have slandered everyone in this forum. Do you remember what Jesus said about calling someone a fool? Truth Is Still Truth Even If You Don't Believe It.
They don't focus on prosecuting men who perform abortions either
Just the ones who have humiliated him in debate. Oh, wait, that would be pretty much everyone in the forum, wouldn't it?
I didn't call anyone a fool. I did point out a moron (or two).
Under attack by TooConservative. Crew don't give AF.
All you have left is namecalling? Maybe you could post some animated GIFs. Then you could finally feel like a winner.
What name was called?
If you're going to quote me, quote me in context. Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.
What shocks me is how many people here at LF refuse to recognize what Trump said. Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished? Well, hell. If that's the way the law is written, of course. Answer me this, smartass. If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no? Tomorrow's Headline: "Too Conservative Trashes First Amendment!"
The one on the right is calling my name.
I don't see how it was ridiculous. Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted. The proper answer for Trump, the only answer, is "women have never been prosecuted for abortion and they will not be, no matter what Congress or the Court does with Roe v. Wade". No anti-abortion law has ever punished a woman (unless she was the abortionist). That was Matthews' gotcha question. And Trump fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Because he actually does have the liberal pro-abortion view of the entire issue, just like Matthews does: back-alley abortions, women being prosecuted, etc. You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs. Recall what happened to Giuliani, cruising along at 65% approval nationally, in 2008 after he said he would pay for his daughter's abortion? It was like a balloon popping. This would be comparable to that in the damage it does. Giuliani only hurt himself as a candidate whereas Trump hurt the entire pro-life cause by giving the abortion mills a major propaganda victory.
They do. The Pro-Life movement and State conservative leaning governments have been very successful in shutting down abortion providers: The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic Where the pro-abort fed.gov and her Whore of Babylon SCOTUS shoot down repeal of Roe v. Wade, state governments have taken to what amounts to an operational envelopment to abortion providers. Abortion clinics are closing in the U.S. at a record pace. In five states — Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming — just one remains. American women were having fewer abortions before clinic closings accelerated in the last couple of years. So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates. But the new strategy adopted by abortion opponents, and the court battles it has set off, have tested how far abortion rights can be limited without being overturned. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
How is that "prosecuting men"?
It's the effect of Plan 9 and morning-after massive doses of birth control. The trend will only accelerate as it becomes standard practice for the younger generation. At present, abortion is mostly for women too dumb or complacent to use the emergency contraceptives.
Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished? Why would Matthews even ask the question? Why? Because in his hypothetical, it was illegal for the woman to have an abortion. "You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs." If they're offended, then they were just waiting for any stupid excuse to be offended. If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?
You're confusing him.
Shutting down the clinics is shutting down the providers. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Source never available on request.
And shutting down their clients. Again, how are higher facility standards "prosecuting men"?
Because it is a favorite shibboleth of the Left and always has been. That was the trap and Trump fell right into it, thinking he was clever by trying to counter that Chrissy was a bad Catholic. Which is beside the point. No matter how much Trump might demonstrate factually that Chrissy is a bad Catholic, it doesn't change the major propaganda victory that Chrissy scored against Trump. And Trump's answer does indicate that he shares that same exact worldview of the results of outlawing abortion. You might not see that but, believe me, the established pro-lifers noticed it.
Your ignorance is your own fault. And it is not my problem.
Currently you cannot by law prosecute an abortion provider. By shutting down their clinics you shut down the provider. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
"No." The proper answer is that the feds would close it down entirely and go after Stone. Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize. In the same way, when outlawing abortion, you'd go after the abortionists and their clinics (also the ob/gyn's who quietly perform abortions in their regular medical offices for their own clients which is not uncommon). We never went after women before Roe either, only the abortionist. There is well over a century of history of this policy. Try reading a little so you won't be as ignorant as your man-crush.
Source never available on request. It's a true statement. Those providing the illegal service before Roe were prosecuted and the woman was not. Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance. Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I agree. Unfortunately, that wasn't my question. I asked if posters to LP should be punished if posting on LP was illegal. You answered "no", making you an anti-law-and-order anarchist. I guess you only obey the laws you like? Should we all do that?
You answered "no", making you an anti-law-and-order anarchist. It doesn't at all, no matter how desperate you are to defend your ridiculous and ignorant candidate putting his foot in his mouth and giving the Left a yuuge propaganda victory, one comparable to Todd Akin and his "legimately raped" comment. More than that, I am aware of how the government does go about shutting down forums and websites. And they always go after the owner/operator of the site, almost never go after the individual posters as long as they are not pursuing illegal activities on that forum. You can see this will Silk Road and other Dark Web sites and other sites dealing in black market goods. You can't erase Trump's blunder to an easily avoided question. You can't excuse his complete ignorance about the history of abortion policy because every other candidate we have does know the correct answer. At some point, they'll have some trick questions for Trump on guns as well. And those will likely work too. That is because Trump is ignorant and lazy and won't hire proper professionals to brief and drill him on these inevitable gotcha traps the libmedia will set for him. I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way. He hasn't called Chrissy any names, talked about blood spurting out of him, etc. Yet he still has an ongoing blood feud vendetta with Megyn Kelly.
All Donald Dollar had to do to fluster Tingles, in the way Jon Stewart did, was to ask him the since he posed a hypothetical question about the illegality of abortion he, Tingles, needs to be more specific and define exactly what crime by the new law would then be committed if an abortion was performed. Would it be a civil or criminal offense? Would it be a misdemeanor or homicide? Would it be a Federal or a State crime or both? Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim. This flies in the face of all logic and reason behind the foundation of our laws. If I hire someone to kill my spouse because she became ill or was an physical or emotional inconvenience/hardship to me or it was a shotgun wedding would I be the victim when the hit man fulfilled the contract? Would I be free of any legal consequences? The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You fail to think it through. If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal. There is no statute of limitations on murder. So you'd have 40-50 million women liable for murder charges. As a practical matter of politics, you can't make women the murderers. You have to go after the person who performed the abortion.
Actually, he's just a run-of-the-mill liberal NYC Democrat and has all the attitudes on public policy that you would expect. That is what the Chrissy interview showed us.
That's whiny bullshit - what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw, and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?
That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.
Art. 1 § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. Your ignorance is like a bottomless well.
That might be as much as half an answer; to repeat, what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?
That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion. A) We don't agree. And B) I listed many other issues which you failed to post. Don't do that again.
Comments (236 - 274) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou're just Trumpsplaining with text styles.
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
#196. To: Fred Mertz (#194)
Pebbles is cursing at you. Sure sign that you're on the banning target list.
#197. To: Fred Mertz, TooConservative, sneakypete, Moderator X, A K A Stone (#194)
Pebbles is cursing at you [TooConservative]. Sure sign that you're on the banning target list.
#198. To: Stoner, sneakypete, buckeroo, A K A Stone, TooConservative, hondo68, Deckard (#197)
#199. To: nolu chan (#195)
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
#200. To: Fred Mertz, sneakypete (#198)
(Edited)
#201. To: TooConservative (#150)
You're a complete moron.
#202. To: redleghunter (#186)
They don't focus on prosecuting women who had an abortion
#203. To: GarySpFC (#201)
You have slandered everyone in this forum.
#204. To: GarySpFC (#201)
You have slandered everyone in this forum. Do you remember what Jesus said about calling someone a fool?
#205. To: misterwhite (#161)
#206. To: Roscoe (#205)
#207. To: TooConservative (#206)
All you have left is namecalling?
#208. To: ConservingFreedom (#179)
"That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on."
#209. To: TooConservative (#183)
(Edited)
"What shocks me is how many people here at LF just don't get what what it was that Trump said."
#210. To: Roscoe (#207)
"What name was called?"
#211. To: misterwhite (#209)
Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished?
#212. To: Roscoe (#202)
They don't focus on prosecuting men who perform abortions either
#213. To: redleghunter (#212)
"The Texas law requires that clinics meet hospital-like surgical standards and that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals."
#214. To: redleghunter (#212)
So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates.
#215. To: TooConservative (#211)
(Edited)
"Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted."
#216. To: misterwhite (#215)
If posting on LF is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished?
#217. To: Roscoe (#213)
How is that "prosecuting men"?
#218. To: TooConservative (#211)
Women were never punished for abortion.
#219. To: redleghunter (#217)
Shutting down the clinics is shutting down the providers.
#220. To: misterwhite (#215)
Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished?
#221. To: Roscoe (#218)
Source never available on request.
#222. To: Roscoe (#219)
Again, how are higher facility standards "prosecuting men"?
#223. To: misterwhite (#215)
If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?
#224. To: Roscoe (#218)
Women were never punished for abortion.
#225. To: TooConservative (#223)
"Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize."
#226. To: misterwhite (#225)
(Edited)
I asked if posters to LP should be punished if posting on LP was illegal.
#227. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, All (#226)
I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way.
#228. To: redleghunter (#224)
Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance.
#229. To: SOSO (#228)
The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach.
#230. To: SOSO (#227)
Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary?
#231. To: misterwhite (#208)
Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.
#232. To: ConservingFreedom (#231)
"and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?"
#233. To: TooConservative (#229)
(Edited)
If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.
#234. To: misterwhite (#232)
That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.
#235. To: ConservingFreedom (#234)
what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]