Trump call to punish women for abortions

a reply to: carewemust if god wanted a certain person to be alive bad enough, it wouldn't matter what you did, heck a drop a nuke on them if you want, the person would live!!! and that same god that you are using to condemn women for abortions, well, his name has also been used to justify countless wars through the ages where millions were killed, all of whom, we must assume that god wanted to be alive but well, was just unable, or just didn't want to bother with keeping alive.

www.ap.org...

you always have to careful with these arguments and stances.

Republicans always lose ground on Moral/Social Issues in general elections. Like taking a hard anti LGBT stance and a hard anti abortion stance. Moderates don't like those.

But as far as abortion goes-it always comes down to the specifics and details. For example. Is the morning after Pill abortion?

a reply to: carewemust

If God created a human life, It's not up to us to determine if it should live or die.

Unless of course, that life had sex outside of marriage, talked back disrespectfully to their parents or researched other religions and belief systems. Then, according to the God of the Bible, they must be killed by human hands.

a reply to: CrazyWater

Matthews asked him, "If abortions were made illegal, would the woman be punished?"

So let's unpack the premise first. "If abortions were made illegal" presumes a state that does not exist, nor will likely ever exist in the US. Not even many pro-life people want it to exist to the extent Matthews boiled it down to. Most pro-life people (including myself) grant the need for the existence of abortion in medically necessary circumstance such as ectopic pregnancy or when the life of the mother is threatened or cannot be preserved without the removal of the pregnancy.

A slightly smaller group grant the use of abortion to cases of rape and incest.

But regardless of the pro-life stance on the first two issues I mentioned, all of us dislike how it has become a means of birth control. The pregnancy is inconvenient to me, so I will end it. Those cases account for the vast majority of abortions performed.

So to get back to unpacking the premise, if you are allowing abortion for even medical necessity which we would be, then Matthews' premise becomes an absurd hypothetical, which it is.

So, let's move on.

Granting that we are operating in Matthews own bizarro world made up of his own extreme view of the right and what they want to do, the answer to the question is what Trump said. If you make all abortion illegal, then it is a crime both to carry one out and to seek one out.

Matthews might has well have asked, "If beer were made illegal, would you punish someone who drinks one?"

The answer to that would still be yes. And of course, this one is not so absurd because we do have the example of Prohibition to look at, but it took a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. I would ask even the most rabid of the pro-choice people here to try to argue that we are in danger of passing that kind of Amendment to end all abortion anytime soon ... even if Donald Trump ... or Ted Cruz ... or Mike Huckabee (arguably the most consistently extreme on pro-life issues) ... were to be elected president.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: InTheLight


If God created a human life, It's not up to us to determine if it should live or die. That's my opinion, FWIW. "Lower" forms of life, sure...but not a human being.

God who?

God what?

You believe it's wrong in your chosen belief -- so don't have one.

I do not share your belief. Nor am I required to.

a reply to: ketsuko

Matthews asked him, "If abortions were made illegal, would the woman be punished?"

So to get back to unpacking the premise, if you are allowing abortion for even medical necessity which we would be, then Matthews' premise becomes an absurd hypothetical, which it is.

It most certainly is NOT an absurd question. It is the logical questions that follows a proposed abortion ban, which Trump, and other GOP candidates have called for. In fact, that is what the Republican platform is, partially, based on.

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.
---------
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.

SOURCE

What the OP was TRYING to say is,

Trump was forced into answering a question that he had clearly not given enough though to. He suggested that women should be punished for breaking the law should abortion be illegal, but was unsure about which what such a punishment would be.

All pretty sensible given the hypothetical nature of the question. Why would a woman not be punished for having an abortion if it were illegal? Quite a bizarre line of attack.

The actual attack should be that he hasn't thought about it enough and also got pushed into a corner. That doesn't quite fit the anti-woman narrative though, i guess.

a reply to: UKTruth

All pretty sensible given the hypothetical nature of the question.

Not all, since he is calling for a ban on all elective abortion. Be careful what you ask for, you might have to answer for it!

a reply to: CrazyWater

Wow. Trump and abortion in this ats thread.

This one will run and run and run...

a reply to: windword

So you are making an argument that a GOP president could get such an Amendment passed in this country?

That's like saying a leftist president could get the country to pass an Amendment banning guns.

a reply to: ketsuko

What I'm saying is, it's not that far fetched, when the entire GOP platform is based on banning abortion, under the guise of protecting the unborn as a"citizen" with personhood rights that would make abortion a violation of the unborn's civil rights under the 14th Amendment, to ask what kind of punishment would follow this unprecedented attack on an autonomous sovereign citizen's civil rights.

Don't "gaslight" us and tell us that banning elective abortion is NOT the agenda of the GOP! The question isn't absurd. Quite the opposite. Donald brought it up, Donald has to answer for it!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

So you are making an argument that a GOP president could get such an Amendment passed in this country?

Are you kidding.

The GOP is doing everything they can to make abortions illegal again.

a reply to: windword

actually, I don't think donald brought it up, the interviewer did. I think he wishes all discussion of abortion on the campaign trail would go away really, just so he he doesn't end up getting forced into answering questions about it like he did in this instance. Now, that he said what he said, I am waiting for some women to come out of the woodwork somewhere or some other evidence where he paid for some women's abortion..... just to tidy things up into a nice hypocritical gift to the republican party!

a reply to: dawnstar

actually, I don't think donald brought it up

Donald Trump DID call for a ban on elective abortion. He admits that in the Chris Matthews interview. Matthews simply took that to its logical end. Trump didn't think the implication of his stand through.

a reply to: Annee

Not kidding. There is no way any sitting POTUS could make abortion illegal. This is nothing but a 'hot button' topic. It is about the correct time in the primary race for it to pop up. I am sure that LGBT rights will be pushed next. Another non POTUS issue.

No one in the media wants to talk issues. That is boring. It is all about creating the headline.

Abortion plain and simple should not be an election talking point.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

Not kidding. There is no way any sitting POTUS could make abortion illegal. This is nothing but a 'hot button' topic. It is about the correct time in the primary race for it to pop up. I am sure that LGBT rights will be pushed next. Another non POTUS issue.

No one in the media wants to talk issues. That is boring. It is all about creating the headline.

Abortion plain and simple should not be an election talking point.

You're wrong.

Row vs Wade hangs on by a thread.

There has been continuous legal attacks to overturn it since it passed.

a reply to: Annee

IF the GOP has its way, and they add this "unborn personhood" Constitutional Amendment, SCOTUS and Roe V Wade will be irrelevant.

a reply to: Annee

Really? 40 years on the books and still has not been overturned. A thread. That is fear messing with your head. Abortion will never go away. It is used by the Progressive left to control the population of the very people they do not want...poor and mostly black. It is sad really to see it happen. No one learns responsibility.

on the other hand, I am opposed to the overturning of Roe vs Wade not because i have a side but it is NONE OF MY OR YOURS OR THE GOVERNMENTS business what a person does to themselves....including abortion.

Yup, I will vote Trump but I also support gay marriage and legal pot....holy # how can I vote REpublican? Because I do not vote party. I vote for who will be best for my country. When you have a few rough choices you make the best.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

IF the GOP has its way, and they add this "unborn personhood" Constitutional Amendment, SCOTUS and Roe V Wade will be irrelevant.

I know. I follow "women's" issues.

They're coming at this from every angle/side imaginable. And have been since it passed.

One slip up that opens the door and it's gone.

Row vs Wade is not 100% safe.

originally posted by: muse7
Ted Cruz will get the vote of the people that genuinely believe abortion is wrong because of their religion

Trump will get the vote of men who just want to control women

So please explain to me the difference between wanting to control women and believing abortion is wrong because of their religion ....

that wants to control women?

Not a Trump supporter, don't get me wrong. He just seems to outright hate women while the religious seem to fear women or anyone who can challenge their power or place.