Posted on 03/30/2016 6:29:18 PM PDT by Kaslin
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:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Trump never did mention Gosnell-like doctors as being in need of punishment. Only the women. Why is that?
Of course, in a Trumpanzee world this means that Trump is ‘on our side’.
Hate wimin that get abortions ? : Trump says will prosecute them.
Feel that they are victims? : Trump says he will not.
Trump represents both sides
As Trump told Matthews today :"This is supposed to be a Democracy"
Trump is his own worst enemy at this point.
Trump is his own worst enemy at this point.
Trump is his own worst enemy at this point.
Agreed, he gives them ammo to feed the 24x7 hate Trump media stories.
This is a “meta article” - it is an article about reactions to articles. It exists to support a narrative. That narrative is “woman hater Trump wants to punish women for abortion”. People are being mislead.
Chris Mathews setup the entire thing,
CM: Should women be punished for having abortion?
DT: Look
CM: This is not something you can dodge. If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder then you have to deal with it under the law. Should abortion be punished?
DT: People in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans they’d say yes they should be punished
CM: How about you?
DT: I would say that it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem that we have to decide on. Are you going to say put them in jail? Is that what you’re talking about?
CM: I’m talking about you because you say you want to ban it.
DT: I am pro life, yes.
CM: How do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
DT: You go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places. But you have to ban it.
.... continued hectoring
CM: Do you believe in punishment for abortion? Yes or no as a principle.
DT: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
CM: For the woman?
DT: Yes.
.... continues
Mathews led Trump. Mathews spawned the “punishment” idea, told Trump “this is not something you can dodge” and he then pestered Trump to answer his question, “Do you believe in punishment for abortion?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aUClmJN4HhI#t=578
You said it
In the War on Drugs, we arrest both users and dealers, it’s the same concept, here, right?
Exactly
It’s a statement of fact.
If abortion is legally banned, this implies that those who go outside the law to receive abortions will necessarily be punished. That’s how laws work.
Why are people being so stupid about what this statement and apparently not understanding the nature of laws?
It doesn’t mean that he is pro life, even if he claims that he is.
That said, his comments are not the vernacular of pro-lifers. As a practical matter, there are many more women who have had abortions than there have been doctors willing to perform them. Cut off the doctors and the abortion rate will decline accordingly. Jail some doctors and take their medical licenses permanently and few medical students or doctors will run the risk. The doctor makes a profit by killing the baby and generally dismembering it by curettage or suction. The woman is often a far easier object of sympathy.
The purpose of the pro-life exercise is to effectively finish off abortion. Dr. Dismemberment is a lot easier to convict before a jury than is the woman. We will win some and we will lose some but each one convicted and jailed will intimidate many others out of the grisly business of baby-killing. We will still see some jury nullification as pro-aborts lie their way on to juries and vote to free Dr. Dismemberment. That is a vast improvement over the current status quo.
Finally, and most importantly, to convict Dr. Dismemberment requires actual competent testimony and evidence. Women quite often have second thoughts after the abortion and change their minds. When abortion is the felony that it ought to be, the testimony of the woman against the abortionist is about as competent evidence as exists. Her frequent position as an object of sympathy turns that factor against Dr. Dismemberment. Defense counsel will try to argue that the testimony, if believed, would mean that the woman is also guilty. Allow her to be prosecutable but give her immunity from prosecution in exchange for full and honest testimony and have the prosecutor bring out that arrangement in his case in chief.
Your argument that she must also be prosecuted is a false moral equivalency argument. Noting that does not make pro-lifers either "philosophically retarded" nor philosophically inconsistent. The reasonable premise from your argument is that you think 60+ million surgical abortions to date is just peachy keen and should continue apace and that is why you would throw monkey wrenches into any legal strategy that would slow the killing much less eliminate most of it. Abortions, like bank robberies will still occur but Dr. Dismemberment has a LOT more to lose than do feral urban youth. Dr. D will take up something more useful which does not threaten to strip his MD license and throw him in the hoosegow like treating the sniffles.
You’re assuming that “women” are pro-baby killing whether or not it’s legal?
Trump continues to separate the wheat from the chaff.
if the ‘legality’ of abortion is reversed, the protection of the abortionist AND the woman is removed
Think it through;
Back alley abortions were considered to be murder, which is why they ‘legalized’ it in the first place
Many a woman died because of the back ally-ness and many abortionists were imprisoned
If abortion reverts back to being illegal, all the aforementioned penalties are re-applied
Trump is correct and is quasi back pedaling because he is nervous about Wisconsin>>> there is no philosophy allowed with ignorant socialists. the correct answer is “Thats a stupid question next question”
Don buddy...
Rule #1- Don’t answer hypothetical questions.
Rule #2- If someone asks you a hypothetical question, see Rule #1>>> agreed he really needs to learn this one or it is toast in the general. The media are figuring out how to trip him. the real answer is stupid question next question.
“Why are people being so stupid about what this statement and apparently not understanding the nature of laws?”
Mark Levin, for one. I couldn’t listen to the whole rant, but he too would punish the doctor only, and didn’t even mention the 10th Amendment, unless I missed it.
It’s not a dodge to say it’s for states to decide whether to punish the women, the “Doctor”, or neither or both. A President has no authority here. All he can do is side with Congress when they direct the Courts to not hear any state abortion law cases.
Patton did not attack all German towns and troop concentrations equally but rather strategically. If his tanks needed fuel, bad luck for German troops guarding fuel depots and better luck for Nazi bureaucrat soldiers. Fuel first and bureaucrats if and when he got around to them. That is how it works.
It is not at all clear what "murderous Leftists" have to do with this question unless they are "murderous Leftist" abortionists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.