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 its the abortionist, not his patient, who should be sanctioned if and when abortion is banned. The March of Life explains why:
Mr. Trumps 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.
Ted Cruz, when hes 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 cant 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 hes 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, lets punish women for abortion. This is the message the partys carrying into the general election against the first woman major-party nominee, huh? By a guy whos already having major problems polling among women, no less.
Its easy to understand how an amateur would stumble into this answer, writes Matt Lewis, but why would you want to nominate an amateur?
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.
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, thats back on the table.
Trumps already trying to walk it back even though the townhall with Matthews from which this was clipped hasnt aired yet:
Hillarys already attacking him over it. So is Team Cruz, as youll see in the second clip below. Trump can run from it but its on tape and every down-ballot Republican will wear it now if hes 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?
"Well he ended up saying NO. so he changed his mind. Hmmm "
But he can't do that! He can't! He can't! He can't!
He said yes. Did you hear him? He said yes. He can't change his mind. He's not allowed. He said yes.
Crucify him for saying yes. Stone him! Didn't you hear him say yes? Oh, we got him now. He said yes. Wanna hear the YouTube? I've got the YouTube where he said yes. Wanna hear it?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#58. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, redleghunter, tomder55 (#32)
Would you guys care to Trumpsplain that to us?
My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.
Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party "We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.
Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?
Won't you have to go after the bank or credit card company that paid for the transaction as well?
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Trump just flipped from punish-the-woman to punish-the-abortionist in less than 4 hours. He has a track record of major flipflopping on this and many other issues.
You just don't like it when someone notices this and points it out.
Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.
The next President will have that power.
There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Three of the sitting justices, two liberal Democrats and the most liberal Republican, are over 80.
If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes. He can assure that the justice by applying a LITMUS TEST to each nominee. Democrats do. Republicans can.
No appointments to the Supreme Court who are not passionate pro-lifers.
So, if Scalia is replaced with a passionate pro-lifer, what do you have?
You have Thomas, who is pro-life. You have Alito, who is probably pro-life. You have Kennedy, who is not, but who is over 80. And you have Roberts, who is a treasonous crapweasel we can assume is not pro-life. that will make three pro-lifers on the court, one of them certain.
Ginsburg, Breyer or Kennedy will go next, either in death, or retirement. Litmus tedst. Now you have two certain pro-lifers (the new one and the Scalia replacement), and two probably (Thomas and Alito).
We know that Roberts can be bought and turned by pressure, and at that point, he'll be on a Republican court in a Republican-run country. He may decide to move back. There's your five.
But if not, then the next of the aged trio goes, and one more sure pro-life vote comes on. Now you have three certains, two probables and Roberts. That's 6-3.
The last of the aged fogeys goes. Litmus test. Now you have FOUR certains, two probables, and Roberts. 7-2.
That pretty much guarantees Roe is overturned during the next President's two terms, if the President is Trump, and if he applies a litmus test.
The President can control this process because of the ages and states of health of three ancient supremes, plus a vacancy.
I agree with what he said in haste, and I think that's really what he thinks. I hope it is. Now he's just making it look reasonable so people can make themselves comfortable with voting for him.
My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.
Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?
The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).
I understand the pro life position politically. However rlk is correct legally and logically.
If I paid you to off someone you would be clearly the murderer and I would be guilty of conspiracy to murder or complicit.
A woman seeks out an abortionist to kill her child. That is the first law violated if Roe overturned. The second law broken by the woman would be obtaining an illegal medical procedure.
Now there are many cases where a battered woman hired another to kill the battering husband. Some of those women are not convicted due to mental and physical trauma.
However logically Trump is accurate. If a woman seeks an illegal abortion then she is involved in premeditated murder.
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)
You know he's a joke. Why do you keep up this silly pretense?
There is no pretense. I do not think Trump is a joke. I think he's the real deal.
Remember, when I said this before you pointed out that you had really lost respect for my intelligence because I said that.
Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.
Hopefully Trump delivers. It isn't a sure thing. You know that right?
In this life, nothing is sure but death and taxes, but I think Trump will deliver. I'm sure that none of the other Republicans will deliver anything I want.
I'm sure that Hillary and Bernie will deliver for their side.
The Republicans keep looking for a deus ex machina to save them from the big bad Trump. There will be none, and in retrospect they'll be happy Trump won.
Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.
Well Elvis has just re-entered the building again.
"Trump is the only Republican for whom I can vote."
That's because Trump is no REP, in this regard he is just like Ron Paul. Given that you hate the REP Party it comes as no surprise that you still will not vote for one.