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: 53673
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 “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
Poster Comment:
The next Trump scandal.This will keep Vannity and Coulter and the other Mini-Me's busy Trumpsplaining it away for the next few days.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 273.
#133. To: TooConservative (#0)
Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged .
#143. To: tomder55 (#133)
"Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged."
But that's not what Matthews asked. He said IF abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law, should she be punished?
Should she?
#145. To: misterwhite (#143)
If Trump had any clue about the pro-life movement and wasn't a recent convert for convenience ,he could've answered the question easily .The pro-life movement is not an anti-woman movement .His answer is exactly what the libs want to hear .It reenforces their stereotypes of conservatives. It's exactly what Chris Matthews wanted to hear . But it doesn't reflect the true opinions of the majority of the prolife folks .
The woman is as much a victim as the baby . Often the woman is desperate and since she lives in this souless nation ,she doesn't know all the alternatives (including lifestyle choices ) . Many women have deep regrets that affect them the rest of their lives . I'm very suprised that the instinct of some pro- lifers is to punish the women. These women are also victims of a social system that encourages them to take that path.
But let me ask you . All the Trump supporters I encounter tell me they like him because he speaks his mind and to hell with p.c. Well yesterday he spoke his mind and appeared to back track apparently due to pc pressure . What is Trump's true position ....the one he initially spoke ;or the pc one he back tracked to for expediency ?
#147. To: tomder55 (#145)
Trump was not asked about abortion in a straightforward way. Had he been he would have responded that he was pro-life. Period. Next question. This is not a burning issue in 2016.
But Chris Matthews was looking for a gotcha moment. He gave Trump a hypothetical scenario, saying that abortion was illegal and asking Trump if he would punish a woman who broke the law.
Trump took that as a law-and-order question and said yes.
#150. To: misterwhite (#147)
Trump was not asked about abortion in a straightforward way. Had he been he would have responded that he was pro-life. Period. Next question. This is not a burning issue in 2016.
You're as brain-dead as Limbaugh was today.
An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?
You're a complete moron.
#161. To: TooConservative (#150)
"An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?"
Is the court about to hear another abortion case? In the next 50 years?
Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?
You're ignorant.
#165. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#161)
Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?
Does he nominate them? Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?
You're ignorant.
You try to deceive - but luckily for decent people, you're not smart enough to do it well.
#167. To: ConservingFreedom (#165)
"Does he nominate them?"
He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.
"Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?"
Nope. But I bet they tell the President, "You nominate this guy and we'll approve".
#170. To: misterwhite (#167)
He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.
Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016.
#173. To: ConservingFreedom (#170)
"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."
Of course. But more than just the President decides who sits there. Ask Obama about that.
#175. To: misterwhite (#173)
"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."Of course.
The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150.
#176. To: ConservingFreedom (#175)
"The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."
I have no idea what that means.
There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important. So is their position on guns. Drugs. Gay rights. Religious freedom. Privacy and NSA. Environmental issues. Healthcare. Tariffs. And 100 other things.
Are you turning this nomination into a single-issue event?
#179. To: misterwhite (#176)
There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important.
That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on.
#208. To: ConservingFreedom (#179)
"That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on."
If you're going to quote me, quote me in context. Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.
#231. To: misterwhite (#208)
Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.
That's whiny bullshit - what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw, and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?
#232. To: ConservingFreedom (#231)
"and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?"
That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.
#234. To: misterwhite (#232)
That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.
That might be as much as half an answer; to repeat, what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?
#235. To: ConservingFreedom (#234)
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.
#238. To: misterwhite (#235)
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.
No, that's your functional illiteracy at work; I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."
And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion" - that's your functional illiteracy at work again.
#240. To: ConservingFreedom (#238)
"I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."
Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.
"And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion"
That's what you said in post #175: "The(n) we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."
Post #150 was about abortion only.
#242. To: misterwhite (#240)
I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."
Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.
By retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I explicitly showed that you did not see it as the "only issue".
Post #150 was about abortion only.
It was about whether abortion is "a burning issue in 2016" - "burning" is not "only".
Look into a remedial reading course.
#252. To: ConservingFreedom (#242)
"By retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I explicitly showed that you did not see it as the "only issue".
So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one. Do you know what "explicit" means?
"It was about whether abortion is "a burning issue in 2016" - "burning" is not "only".
No. But when only abortion is mentioned, then abortion is "only".
#254. To: misterwhite (#252)
So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one. [...] But when only abortion is mentioned, then abortion is "only".
The existence of more than one issue is a given; are you really this obtuse, or are you hoping your fellow LFers are?
#255. To: ConservingFreedom (#254)
"The existence of more than one issue is a given"
Then it would be "implicit".
Moot point. If the poster meant to refer to more than one issue he wouldn't have singled out just one.
#258. To: misterwhite (#255)
By retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I explicitly showed that you did not see it as the "only issue".
So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one.
The existence of more than one issue is a given
Then it would be "implicit".
Even if you were right*, it remains the case that by retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I showed that you did not see it as the "only issue" - so I clearly did not, as you claimed, draw the conclusion "That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion."
(*Which you aren't; the existence of other issues is implicit, which means that when you say "abortion is important" you have explicitly said you don't see it as the "only issue in contention". One doesn't need to state every relevant premise in order to have been explicit.)
#259. To: ConservingFreedom (#258)
One doesn't need to state every relevant premise in order to have been explicit
#260. To: Roscoe (#259)
So you know how to post a graphic ... very nice - have a cookie.
#261. To: ConservingFreedom (#260)
Look up explicit in a dictionary. Or have somebody read it to you. Slowly.
#262. To: Roscoe (#261)
Arguments not infrequently rely on the law of the excluded middle, but rarely state this rule; if you'd like to maintain that all such arguments are not explicit, feel free - more fool you.
#263. To: ConservingFreedom (#262)
Non sequitur.
#264. To: Roscoe (#263)
Wrong.
#265. To: ConservingFreedom (#264)
The excluded middle says the implicit is explicit?
Source please. (And wash you hand after extracting it.)
#272. To: Roscoe (#265)
You sure think about anus a lot.
#273. To: ConservingFreedom (#272)
anus
project
Replies to Comment # 273.
I'm sure you'd like to.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 273.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]