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?
The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).
This has been the dogma of the pro-lifers for decades, something only an ignoramus panderer like Trump would not know. That is because he is -- as he always was -- an advocate for all abortions, including partial-birth abortion, having praised his own sister for the NJ abortion decision she issued as a federal judge.
On most topics, I think Trump has pretty good political instincts. But this? Why the hell did he get involved on this? Stupid! I do not see where he gained anything. Really stupid!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"That's a secondary consequence that must by considered when passing a law."
Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"
The law could read that no one is allowed to perform an abortion. Those who do are punished according to the law. Whether or not the woman is also punished is subject to the law.
The doctor doesn't perform the abortion unless the woman comes and HIRES HIM to murder her child.
So you consider abortion to be murder-for-hire and the woman should be executed as a first-degree murderer and the abortionist would face a long prison sentence as a mere accomplice?
This has been the dogma of the pro-lifers for decades, something only an ignoramus panderer like Trump would not know.
If THAT really IS "pro-life dogma", then no wonder pro-lifers have failed at everything. They're dumb as dogshit.
I am pro-life, and MY position is not so limp and stupid.
Abortion happens because woman want to murder their unwanted children.
The WOMEN are monsters and murderesses. The abortion doctors are the evil creep hitmen.
They're both evil, and they both deserve to be put to death for murdering children.
Abortion doesn't happen without an evil murderous bitch ordering it. The women are BY FAR the greater and worse cause, and BY FAR bear the greatest guilt. For the abortion doctor didn't go out and decide to murder another human being to be able to have orgasms without consequence.
So you consider abortion to be murder-for-hire and the woman should be executed as a first-degree murderer and the abortionist would face a long prison sentence as a mere accomplice?
Execute them both. The abortionist commits a murder, the woman also commits the murder. They're both assassins, and they both deserve death and Hell.
Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"
But that isn't what he said.
The Dims will promptly launch a campaign against him like the one against Todd Akin. All that Akin said was that women who are "legitimately" raped rarely get pregnant. Trump went much further than that.
And the Dims will tar every Republican with the same brush, the usual War On Women garbage.
The victim? Are you saying the abortion was performed without her consent?
Isn't killing a baby murder? If I shot a pregnant woman and killed her baby, I would be charged with murder. So if she allows a doctor to perform this murder, isn't she equally to blame?
On most topics, I think Trump has pretty good political instincts. But this? Why the hell did he get involved on this? Stupid! I do not see where he gained anything. Really stupid!
There are times when Trump shows evidence of not having considered things very comprehinsively or not having thought ahead. In some areas he lacks depth.
You don't think a woman who kills her kid has commited a sin.
Don't ever claim to be pro life. You're not conservative either.
too means also.
That means you have a couple of conservative positions. Everything else is libertariantard.
So you support abortion, Heroin. You don't support closing the border. You say that faggot lover Johnson is conservative because he is for abortion and fag pretend marriage.
Sure. At that point, they were talking about the woman having a back-alley abortion. Matthews asked if she should be punished for that that. Trump said yes.
Trump corrected that later and said she shouldn't. End of story.
I don't think there is a pro-life group in the country that would want you as a member, let alone a leader.
The Catholic Church is pretty pro-life. They have me. But guess what, I can't become one of THEIR leaders, because in the end I prefer sex and childbearing with a woman than being a eunuch for God - and that means that I don't get to be a leader in that institution. Only those who sacrifice their sexual lives to follow Christ wholly get to be.
You don't like that. But it acts as a very effective barrier to those of us who are fleshly enough to prefer the carnal company of the opposite sex over a life of prayer, and who are therefore likely to favor our families - as we would be expected.
There are very few Catholic parents who would obey God if they were in the position of Abraham, asked to sacrifice their son. They would say "No, Lord, I will not." Or they would say "You are not really God - you are a demon to demand such a thing!" I know I would.
And therefore, the fact of celibacy MEANS that Catholic parents and spouses aren't put in the position of having to choose between God and family. The rule avoids it.
So, I AM already a part of the world's largest and most consistent pro-life organization. They're happy to have me as a member. And no, I will never be in any position of leadership, and shouldn't be. And it is all designed that way, quite wisely I believe.
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.
Saudi government wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'
You may just get this with Trump as president.
No way. Trump doesn't care about the gays. He lives in NYC, a very tolerant place. He's tolerant. I am too.
Baby murder is a different thing altogether. No sane person should tolerate baby murderers walking around in our midst. Abortion needs to be stopped, and those hellbent on murder anyway should be dispatched to hell where they belong.
Men who want to bugger men? Seriously, do you really care? I don't. God does. He'll take care of that. I DO care about people killing other people, though. And babies are people.
Muslims hate people who murder babies. They even had a rule about cumming inside your slave girl because if God wanted a baby to come from her than let God will it and not humans intervene. There's a lot of bad things for Islam but that's not it.