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 ...
The change in the abortion climate changed in 1989 precisely when Operation Rescue began their work. If you check the stats you will see that the numbers began going down from that point on.
I still do not need the executions even of actual abortionists. Dr Bernard Nathanson was responsible for 250,000 abortions in NYC and had been a Board member of NARAL. For various good and sufficient reasons, he turned against abortion when he was still an atheist or agnostic, sold his chain of abortion mills (morally questionable but someone would have just opened new mills in the old places) and used the money to attack abortion through the Bernadele Foundation. He was baptized a Christian and, IIIRC, became a Catholic before he died some years later of cancer. Likewise Norma McCorvey (the Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) and Sarah Scorvino (the Doe of Doe vs. Bolton) and many abortionists and Planned Barrenhood personnel and many post-abortive women and many men responsible for those abortions. If any find their way to salvation as prodigal sons or daughters, we should be joyful since that is what at least we Catholics believe was God's intent when He created them. Who am I to disagree with God?
What is fair is to use the successful prosecutions of abortionists to save the lives of untold millions of future innocent victims. If those women who have had abortions, including several of my good friends and several more of my pro-life clients are not punished, so be it. The babies come first.
Well I am not for going back and looking for people retroactively.
I think that the best thing to do is to declare the practice illegal, ask the Lord for His Forgiveness, and in the future treat it as it would have been declared, and that is illegal.
If you theory is correct, it would explain why Beelzebubba and Her Satanic Majesty rammed through the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances FACE Act which largely put Operation Rescue out of business but the numbers of abortions per year are still below maximum levels of previous years. The SCOTUS (in a decision by Stephen Breyer!!!) had also ruled that the federal racketeering RICO statute could not be applied to pro-lifers for clinic actions.
Nonetheless, so long as activists of Operation Rescue and of the Pro-Life Action Network and similar groups survive to tell the tale, there will always be an underground resistance to abortion awaiting further opportunities for effective moral action.
Fair enough.
I know as a pro-abort show of force in Dallas, in 1989, there were 3 abortion clinic "bombings" that took place which the pro-aborts hoped would knock OR a big whammy. The leaders in OR were questioned about involvement.
A friend of mine was personally questioned by the ATF. After being interviewed, she asked the guy what the deal was and she was told that all the evidence pointed to an inside job in all 3 of the cases.
One clinic had its front desk destroyed which was found out to have had a liquid accelerant sprayed on it that flames up and quickly dies out it didn't to more damage than to just the desk.
Another had all of its patient records destroyed only which indicated that the same accelerant was used and btw - that clinic was at the time involved in a law suit where a woman had died at the clinic.
And the last clinic had its outside air conditioning unit destroyed.
The ATF guy admitted that they always know when pro-lifers are involved because they go straight for the suction equipment.
Curiously, the media never did present an update concerning the inside job opinion of the ATF and let people continue to think that Operation Rescue was the culprit.
Ubi jus; ibi remedies
That is, where there is a lew, there must be a remedy.
That is, there is no law without a penalty.
That is, a law without a penalty for violation can be no law.
That is, that if Trump was asked if there would be a penalty for breaking abortion law, the obviously correct answer would be yes...or it would not be a law.
2,000 years it has thus been recognized.
Some of you Cruzbots are just as dishonest as Cruz...
The rapid fire mouthpiece with the tingle up his leg was firing questions at Trump...He asked Trump another 'gotcha' question and Trump fell into it...
Trump has always advocated some kind of retribution for abortion doctors...NOT THE WOMEN...Trump not long after corrected that statement...That makes his initial answer of 'yes' null and void...You guys are creepy...
I think you miscalculate. Trump is running for nomination on a conservative platform. It should be no surprise to liberals that a conservative candidate is pro-life. Given a hypothetical question, Trump gave the right response; Cruz choked.
Wow. You are the last person I would expect to make this argument.
If I hire someone to kill someone else for whatever reason I am an accessory to murder.
Whether that practically makes it harder to reduce the number of abortions in irrelevant as a legal and moral principle.
Yes. Never answer hypotheticals.
In legal and moral principle he is correct.
Whether it would ever sell politically is unlikely but the hypocrites on the right should be ashamed.
Thank you for the well reasoned reply. I partially share your view that protection of the unborn is the ‘most important issue.’
Given what is going on all over the world and the turmoil in every country. There are many very serious issues and threats facing us, our families, friends and the country.
Protecting the unborn must share our attention and energies, and those of leaders, with those other issues.
Even though many of our leaders do appear to be rather useless.
Seriously? You would agree with the leftist talking head CNN had on this morning then.
He didn’t lose me...
Our leaders do appear to be rather useless because they ARE useless.
God bless you and yours!
Remind me not to depend on your strategic insanity.
The purpose of this exercise is to save the maximum number of innocent babies in utero and criminal prosecution should be a tool to that end but merely a tool. The purpose is life-saving and not punishment for the sake of punishment.
At the end of WWII, we did not track down every last Nazi criminal. The important priority was putting an end to the Holocaust. Then and only then did Western Civilization deal with the criminals who could be found. Note that ever since then, there have been no camps to kill Jews, Gypsies and political dissidents in systematic genocide (soviet union, Red China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and various Islamofascist tyrannies, et al., notwithstanding).
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.