Trump: If abortion is banned, there has to be some form of punishment

Hot Air.com ^ | March 30, 2016 | ALLAHPUNDIT

[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:

[Elsie]

The set up premise:

...if abortion were illegal...

Trump has NO way out.

Chris pounces on the ABORTION!!! word, and avoids the ILLEGAL word.

Trump is saying that broken LAWS should be punished.

God knows that enough of our laws are not!

Today; about 3,300 future American citizens will DIE at the hands of a serial killer; your local "Woman's Health Provider".

---

[BlackElk]

Larry (may I call you Larry?), my wife teaches at an uber-Catholic private academy (owned by parents) and uses your Patriot's History of the United States to supplement Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People as the texts for her American History course.

I would have thought you should be among the last people to disagree much less on the basis that the "rule of law" be erected as a false god which must be served even at the cost of more millions of innocent babies' lives.

Lincoln is said to have observed, in defense of his war, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I would add that the Constitution cannot be allowed to be used as a warrant for infinite numbers of baby murders. Might it reasonably be argued that, if you allow perpetuation of the status quo, you are also an accessory? Shall we punish you?

Lincoln (not a hero of mine) also said in a letter to Horace Greeley that if maintaining slavery would perpetuate the Union, he would maintain slavery ad if ending slavery would preserve the Union, he would abolish slavery, etc. In any event he claimed that the primary purpose of the war was preservation of the Union and he acted accordingly.

What is our primary purpose? Saving the babies or getting some emotional satisfaction from prosecuting women?

I was an American History major and graduated Magna cum Laude but went on to law school and that led me to defend pro-lifers although, until I actually read the text of Herod Blackmun's despicable Roe vs. Wade decision, I actually agreed with the idea that abortion, while immoral, should not be illegal. As a law student, I read the decision the day it was handed down and faxed to the law library. I wanted to know what the geniuses on SCOTUS had figured out as a legal rationale. My mind was changed permanently by the prostitution of SCOTUS and Blackmun in particular.

Reduction of abortions can NEVER be irrelevant as a moral or legal principle.

[Elsie]

Lib’s are all for folks breaking the laws they do not like!

[Elsie]

You state it quite clearly

[Elsie]

YUP!

And they’ll POUND it into the American psyche; too!

[HiTech RedNeck]

One more one-dimensional person.

[Elsie]

People are being mislead.

Ya!

Velcome to Amerika!!

 

 

 

" The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -

- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

[HiTech RedNeck]

If you actually read the Old Testament, the onus is not on the woman either, but on the one who “strikes her” so as to “cause harm.”

God might have made that distinction for a reason. He wasn’t just groggy from creation.

[Elsie]

while the act of abortion violates the life/liberty/property of the baby.

While 'mom' gets to pursue HER happiness.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Almost always there are clearly tangible moral knock-on consequences. This happiness proves illusory.

For every nut that dons an “I celebrate my abortion” shirt, there must be a million who are haunted.

[DungeonMaster]

Trump has just blown it wit woman.

Now with Christian women.

[Elsie]

If you are going to draw a line, you had best be prepared to enforce that line, otherwise don't bother.

Oh?

Like...

Thou shalt not...?

Are you still killing your unborn?

-- GOD

 

[BlackElk]

And Rand should have known. Few had more experience with moral evil than La Rand who was a major practitioner of evil with fewer morals than an alley cat despite her self-worship. She knows better now. She had superficial attractions for adolescents. Most of us outgrew those attractions. Sorry about you. She was a major pro-abort, as well, hysterically supporting Feckless Ford in her Ayn Rad Newsletter lest Ronaldus Maximus bring pro-life policies to the White House. She more closely resembled James Taggert than Dagny Taggert.

You trivialize the entire discussion by reducing it to a transitory squabble between Cruz supporters and Trump supporters. The babies are more important than both of them.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Maybe should we put a period after the word clue?

[HiTech RedNeck]

How about everybody’s soul being even more important than anybody’s body.

Oops, but the self righteous don’t manage to rise that high in their consideration.

[Elsie]

...the additional fact that at least 1 out of 3 babies scheduled to be dismembered...

Any school teachers reading this?

Tell your students to look around the room.

Tell them to imagine having 1/3 MORE kids in their classroom if they had not been killed before birth.

[LS]

I am merely dividing the PRINCIPLE (on which Trump is correct, right???) from the practical.

We have agreed in the past on the practical. Can we now agree that Trump is right on the principle?

If you hire a man to kill your wife, you are an accessory. That is a pretty well established legal fact. It’s not just “a false god” of “rule of law.” That is, you had murder in your heart and followed up on it. Jesus said if you even thought the act, you have committed it.

And it is truly ridiculous to argue that enforcing a law perpetuates violation of a law. If that were true, we should have no laws.

So, let’s agree, regardless of the practicality, Trump was 100% right in principle and should be supported on this PRINCIPLE, that in an abortion there is no such thing as an “innocent victim” except for the baby.

[Elsie]

The doctors are the vulnerable choke point.

You gotta get our ELECTED 'leaders' first!

[LS]

Maybe you should answer the question: if in the case of a murder, a man hires someone to kill his wife, he is an accessory to murder. Why is this not the case in an abortion? Why is only the doctor punished?

[BlackElk]

If we don't punish them here on Earth, then they may find themselves, unrepentant, in Heck! My God lives and He is no mere pillow in the sky. All knowing, all merciful but also all just---now and forever!

I must cut out now but I shall return after a day of medical care.

God bless you and yours!