March 30, 2016

Trump says "there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, then takes it back.



The criticism erupted. Hillary Clinton tweeted that punishing the woman is “horrific and telling.” And John Kasich, who opposes abortion, said: "of course women shouldn’t be punished.... I don’t think that’s an appropriate response, and it’s a difficult enough situation than to try to punish somebody." Why isn't it the appropriate answer for those who oppose abortion rights? Is abortion not the woman's decision? Why shouldn't the decision-maker be held responsible if abortion is to be banned? It sounds as though you don't respect women as decisionmakers.

It took less than 3 hours for Trump to recant in a statement that read:
If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. 
The woman is a victim of her own decision? How does that respect the autonomy and full personhood of the woman? Those who want to ban abortion should take responsibility for what they are really saying about women, that women should be denied a choice they want to make. Unless you think the denial is based on women's inability to think for themselves and ascertain what's right and wrong and define the meaning of life for themselves, then you should hold women responsible for choosing to do something that you think the majority has the power to forbid and you want to forbid. If you think women are incapable of thinking for themselves, say that outright. It would take political courage. If you think women are capable and would be choosing to do something that is properly forbidden, then admit that they deserve punishment. Ah, but that too would take political courage.

135 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

Not a rocket scientist.

Meade said...

"Not a rocket scientist."

But we still accept you, Bob.

DKWalser said...

Althouse -- You're correct. Those who believe abortion should be outlawed need to own the consequences of that position (both good and bad). If abortions are illegal, seeking one should be illegal, too. It's not as if doctors are dragging pregnant women off the street in order to perform abortions. Women are seeking out abortions.

Of course, it wouldn't be the only two-party transaction where one of the parties is more likely to be punished than the other. In most of the country, prostitutes are dealt with more harshly than are those trying to procure the services of a prostitute. If it's illegal to engage in sex for money, logic and fairness demand that it should be illegal to pay for sex, too.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump gets muddled when talking specific policy issues. But I don't fault him here. Difficult issue with a lotta minefields and tripwires for the unwary.

The feminists got wide-spread abortion legalized 40 years ago and 60 million abortions later they are still on DefCon1 for any inkling of perceived resistance.

Best for politicos to be vague and pleasant when discussing his unpleasant topic.

Reagan, when California governor, signed a pretty liberal abortion law, but didn't take much heat for it when he ran for Prez in 1980.

Michael K said...

Trump is often winging it when talking without a teleprompter, which is mots of the time. His instincts are pretty good but he does go too far from time to time. The last time Hillary spoke off teleprompter or memorized text was about 1992.

Abortion has gotten too far into infanticide for me and I've done abortions back when I was a resident.

Steven said...

It's not inconsistent not to punish the woman. There's a similar issue with prostitution, where it is better to punish the client rather than the prostitute. The reason being that the prostitute may be doing it out of desperate circumstances and so as not to discourage prostitutes who are abused from going to the police.

With abortion, it also makes more sense to punish the doctor so that women who seek abortions out of desperation are not punished or those who are victims of some related wrongdoing (abuse, malpractice...) are not discouraged from reporting it.

Ann Althouse said...

I liked the part where Trump started interviewing Chris Matthews, and I thought Chris Matthews stepped up and answered well.

It's not easy... I say after teaching a long class on the partial-birth abortion case.

Marc Puckett said...

To think that the GOP is tempted to make that fellow its presidential candidate! his putative conversion to being 'pro-life' and then this nonsense confirms me in my suspicion that his other changes of political conviction are equally as vacuous or thoughtless or simply basely expedient; someone's rushed in to try to save him with the 'the woman is a victim too' lifeline. But I'm #NeverTrump so, eh.

Grackle said...

Just another blast from ass cannon Donald Trump.

rhhardin said...

Trump wings it and gets into PC trouble on an issue he doesn't have any preference for.

Intuitions go both ways.

I'd guess abortions will be banned someday for reasons of needing to support the population size, not for reasons of religious dogma.

rhhardin said...

Trump wants the women's vote, but that requires going politically correct; and the men's vote wants him not to cave to PC.

Those are Trump's intuitions too.

n.n said...

The only moral difference between terminating a human life before and after birth is that a woman cannot simply abandon her child before birth without also killing him directly. That's the threshold established by the pro-choice religion in an effort to reduce emotional and legal liability to women, abortionists, and planners (e.g. #CecileTheCannibal).

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Browndog said...

Nobody talks faster than Matthews. Nobody can fire off 200 words to preface a question in under 4 seconds, then ask a totally different question like Matthews.

It's an art, and served him well over the last 20 years.

I'm not saying this happened here. I am saying there is an element to that; Matthews going straight for the liberal red meat with abortion knowing full well it is, in a practical sense, a moot point to the Presidency.

Fast talking political expert: 1

Fast talking political novice: -1

n.n said...

Women contract with abortionists to kill their unwanted children. Abortion advocates are accessories to the "final solution". The Humpty Dumpty faction are the "good Germans" who go along to get along in order to avoid scrutiny and harassment by the American socialists.

Amanda said...

Every single person who thinks abortion should be illegal should face the fact that it's going to take big government with investigation and enforcement agencies to deal with any anti abortion laws. Who is the perpetrator, who is the victim? Now Trump says the woman is a victim? Really? Who forced this woman to have an abortion? It's the woman's choice, it's her private affair, it's no business of anyone's other than her and her doctor.

This is just another question on a serious issue that Trump totally flubs when pressed to answer. He flails, he spits out some stupid answer, he reaffirms his inability to be taken seriously as a candidate for the Presidency and his followers simply pretend that his answer doesn't matter.

n.n said...

So, how did the Supreme Court manage to excise the second named party, Posterity, to the constitution without inviting condemnation of their unconstitutional ruling?

The overlapping and convergent interests from left, right, and middle on "social" issues that ignore the constitution, deny science, deny equal protection, and violate human rights are on public display today.

n.n said...

Women will always have a natural right to kill their unwanted children in private. However, it was not until the pro-choice cult under Democrat leadership that this orientation and behavior left the dark fringes and was normalized in civilized society.

Craig Howard said...

With abortion, it also makes more sense to punish the doctor so that women who seek abortions out of desperation are not punished or those who are victims of some related wrongdoing (abuse, malpractice...) are not discouraged from reporting it.

Nonsense. If you break the law, your desperation is no defense. Trump was right before he was wrong.

Jonathan Graehl said...

is there no depth too disingenuous for victim women and their enabling men? i'm in favor of 'safe surrender' without sanction, but not for late (5mo+) abortions. for those monstrous women who really feel free to evacuate their womb on a whim, we'll have to c-section into nicu incubators. punish both ends of the transaction always. physically pressed into prostitution? sure, consider that in sentencing.

then again, political realities. interesting seeing something approaching competence from the unified elite brain trust. they know something about political minefields.

Jonathan Graehl said...

trump should retreat to: "women should decide this issue. men have no right". take a poll of women and make policy that way.

rcocean said...

Its unnecessary to punish women for having abortions. Its much easier to just punish the abortion doctors.

I'm surprised Trump stepped in this one. He needs to cut back on the interviews.

rcocean said...

We only talk about abortion in Presidential campaigns because of women and a few religious people. The President can't really do anything about it, other than appointing pro-life SCOTUS judges and even that is a crap shoot.

Amanda said...

"We only talk about abortion in Presidential campaigns because of women and a few religious people."

Never mind that women make up slightly more than half of American voters. It's just a woman's issue, of no importance.

Birkel said...

rcocean:

It is a mighty fine excuse to blame the number of interviews instead of the responses of the candidate.

What other candidates are so lucky to have such an understanding group of supporters?

Browndog said...

Amanda said...

"We only talk about abortion in Presidential campaigns because of women and a few religious people."

Never mind that women make up slightly more than half of American voters. It's just a woman's issue, of no importance.


Men that have a deep seeded, natural animus towards women that kill their children born or yet to born, might take issue.

Hagar said...

It depends on what question you hear.
What I heard Chris Matthews ask was "If abortion sometime in the future is made illegal, do you think the women involved should be punished?"
So Trump gave the correct answer for anyone who believes laws are made to be obeyed, and if you do not like the law, work to have it repealed or changed, which I also believe is the traditional philosophy of the Republican party.

pm317 said...

Perfect last para, Althouse! What is that demigod ly'ng Cruz going to say?

Mountain Maven said...

Alinksy level troll. Politicizing homicide. ST@U
IIRC no one has ever said this publicly before because it's beneath discussion and then you lovers of death take it and run with it.
Dispicable.

pm317 said...

@Hagar.. oh, it was a trap from tweety and Trump walked right into with.., ahem.. political courage.

YoungHegelian said...

Actually, Ross Douthat covers this issue of the moral responsibility of the mother fairly well in question eight.

Under Canon Law, however, a woman & anyone who assists her in what is seen as the grievous sin of a mother murdering her own child, automatically excommunicate themselves. Thus, in theory, they can only be absolved by a bishop. In practice, however, the sin is so common that certain priests are given special authority to perform such absolutions.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Sometimes I murder my sperm cells by failing to incubate every last one of them.

Even more egregiously, I occasionally don't even allow myself to ejaculate a sperm cell or two (million) every now and then, forcing them to be resorbed back into my seminiferous tubules.

Oh, the humanity.

Some day I will wear white robes and a pointy hat and thereby gain the authority to convince billions of people that this is mainstream moral reasoning.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The woman is a victim of her own decision? How does that respect the autonomy and full personhood of the woman?

It doesn't. But that's never been one of their interests or concerns - and not just for women.

PB said...

All life matters.

Real American said...

I don't know. Having another person killed because he or she inconveniences you sounds like something worthy of punishment.

Hagar said...

It really is getting bad. Between these 5 candidates I feel like going to bed and pulling the covers over my head - for the next 5 years.

traditionalguy said...

But where will the scientists get their fresh baby parts when abortion becomes restricted.

glenn said...

Actually given the demographic of the women who are getting abortions I thing the pro-abortion folks are racists.

Pass it on.

Gahrie said...

The woman is a victim of her own decision?

People hurt themselves and others all the time through bad decisions...drunk driving, suicide, unprotected sex....

How does that respect the autonomy and full personhood of the woman?

Much more than abortion respects the full personhood of the child. And what about the autonomy of the man she had sex with?

Those who want to ban abortion should take responsibility for what they are really saying about women, that they should be denied a choice they want to make.

I agree 1,000%.

Unless you think the denial is based on women's inability to think for themselves and ascertain what's right and wrong and define the meaning of life for themselves, then you should hold women responsible for choosing to do something that you think the majority has the power to forbid and you want to forbid.

True. My position is, the desire to kill your child is irrational and deviant by definition, and a sign of temporary mental illness. Thus, the woman truly is a victim, though not nearly as much as her child.

If you think women are incapable of thinking for themselves, say that outright. It would take political courage.

I wouldn't say incapable, I'd say unwilling.

If you think women are capable and would be choosing to do something that is properly forbidden, then admit that they deserve punishment. Ah, but that too would take political courage.

I would say they deserve treatment. I would be willing to punish women who have a clear record of using abortion as a form of birth control however.

Gahrie said...

It's just a woman's issue, of no importance.

No it is not a women's issue...and it is the pro-abortion side that insists that it is.

It is a human issue, and the thoughts, feelings and rights of three individuals are involved, but only one of them gets to make literally life changing decisions that effect the other two.

Gahrie said...

Sometimes I murder my sperm cells by failing to incubate every last one of them.

There is a distinct difference between a sperm and a fertilized ova, and your inability, or unwillingness, to acknowledge the fact is telling.

Amanda said...

"Having another person killed because he or she inconveniences you sounds like something worthy of punishment."

So, when abortion is illegal and the woman is suspected of having had an illegal abortion, who should investigate? What should it be named? The Bureau of Reproductive Mortality? What agency should enforce the law against abortion? The DOJ? Or should there be some special agency formed to take care of the murderous moms? I'd love to hear some creative ways to deal with women who abort their fetuses.

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

So, when abortion is illegal and the woman is suspected of having had an illegal abortion, who should investigate?

The police, like is the case in every other homicide.

What should it be named?

The police.
... I'd love to hear some creative ways to deal with women who abort their fetuses.

No need to be creative, we have the police.

traditionalguy said...

Chris Mathews did a brilliant fencing match with Trump and quick talked him with better moves than Trump has seen before. That was a lesson that Trump will learn from.

But the character issue of good heart and courage with NO DONOR BRIBES in the mix still trumps all the faults Trump shows. By far.

n.n said...

Like the wall to be built that will force second and third-world leaders to address the underlying causes of mass exodus of disparately impacted natives, the rejection of a religion instructed by gods from the twilight zone and their liberal servants on the supreme court will force people to address the science, rights, and equal protection of human life at a uniquely vulnerable stage in its evolution. It will also revisit the merits of a "final solution" perpetrated against the second named party to the constitution, Posterity.

Amanda said...

"It is a human issue, and the thoughts, feelings and rights of three individuals are involved, but only one of them gets to make literally life changing decisions that effect the other two."

Perhaps if you ask the fetus using some high tech ultrasonic method of communicating the fetus could have it's say, if it's brain would be developed enough to be able to think that is.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It is a human issue, and the thoughts, feelings and rights of three individuals are involved, but only one of them gets to make literally life changing decisions that effect the other two.

And if anyone ought to know that, it's Gahrie. As the quality of his thoughts is literally embryonic.

Browndog said...

Feminists like Inga's sister love to push a narrative designed to imply women are a separate species from men.

Superior, at that.

n.n said...

The casualty rate of human life without a voice, disarmed through Planning, and denied their existence through a liberal interpretation of science, morality, and the constitution is nearly 100%. Then there is the progressive mental and physical effects for women who contract with abortionists and submit to planning procedures.

Rhythm and Balls said...

There is a distinct difference between a sperm and a fertilized ova, and your inability, or unwillingness, to acknowledge the fact is telling.

Oh do tell me, Master Magician, what the difference is in the quality of "thoughts, feelings and rights" between a sperm cell and a fertilized ova (sic).

BTW, mental midget of Vatican Kingdom, the singular is OVUM, not "ova." Something you might have remembered that if you'd actually bothered to learn any of the relevant biology before spouting off all moralistically on it and whatnot.

Amanda said...

"No need to be creative, we have the police."

Maybe they could have a special tactical unit for the murderous moms, Sondertotekinderkommando..

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Maybe they could have a special tactical unit for the murderous moms, Sondertotekinderkommando..

Eh..I'd go with sex crimes or the special victim's unit.

Hagar said...

Some forms of abortion are illegal now, and a woman that has one of those should be charged now.

Saint Croix said...

Those who want to ban abortion should take responsibility for what they are really saying about women, that they should be denied a choice they want to make.

The woman, the woman, the woman. The goal of feminism is to make woman the center of the universe. There is no father. There is no baby. There is no doctor, even. It's always the woman, the woman, the woman.

If you think women are incapable of thinking for themselves, say that outright.

You're not allowed to kill your baby, is what I think.

None of the moms, or the dads, in the Kermit Gosnell murders were prosecuted as co-conspirators. They could have been, since they participated, they paid for the abortion, and in many cases they were witnesses to the murder of the newborn. But the authorities elected to prosecute the doctors and not to prosecute any of the moms.

It's hard enough fighting this fight with a media that is 100% against the pro-life movement, and a media that has been censoring this violence for 40 years. Althouse routines censors abortion photographs whenever she discusses this issue. That's the only way she can keep repeating this fantasy that pro-lifers are hostile to women.

If women are such tough decision-makers, Althouse, why the censorship? Why hide the violence of abortion from women?

Gahrie said...

And if anyone ought to know that, it's Gahrie. As the quality of his thoughts is literally embryonic.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, your piece of murderous leftist (I repeat myself) shit.

Gahrie said...

"It is a human issue, and the thoughts, feelings and rights of three individuals are involved, but only one of them gets to make literally life changing decisions that effect the other two."

Perhaps if you ask the fetus using some high tech ultrasonic method of communicating the fetus could have it's say, if it's brain would be developed enough to be able to think that is.


So, because a newborn, up to the age of say five or six is unable to understand death, and formulate the concept that they wish to live, it is OK for their moms to kill them?

What about the third person? You know the man? Yeah, yeah ..fuck him...he's just a sperm donor and a potential wallet, right?

Gahrie said...

It never ceases to amaze me that the Left assigns more rights to, and shows more compassion for, animals than it does human children.

If I opened up an animal clinic, and performed abortions on cats and dogs the way Gosnell did to humans, the Left would shut me down in a week.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well all right everybody. The creationists have spoken. On matters of morality, nonetheless. As if their ignorance on the science of life wasn't enough.

I think we're done here. Feel free to lose another election - this time not only on the debacle of a trash talking trustafarian who's doing the great work of finally burning down the obscenity known as "the Republican Party", but with threats of jailing women who dare to assert that the government has no place inside their bodies.

Good bye and fuck off. And don't forget to save the micro-cellular-babies incubating inside your guts - reminders of your own self-copulation.

It's the most we can expect after your mental masturbation. Great big orgies of mental and moral masturbation.

Don't forget to turn off the lights after the Trump campaign either implodes, or takes America with it.

Twat-heads.

CatherineM said...

He is just so unprepared. Of course he has winged it so far, but your abortion position is politics 101.

If he were smart he would have said your hypothetical is never going to happen. Abortion is legal and that is not going to change in our lifetime.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What about the third person? You know the man? Yeah, yeah ..fuck him...he's just a sperm donor and a potential wallet, right?

Well, in your case, yeah.

I mean seriously, you're a literal "dick" "head".

As in, you have no other purpose in life.

A robot. A human knob. A nobody. A nothing.

A sperminator.

Amanda said...

It never ceases to amaze me that the right assigns more rights to the fetus than the already born adult woman.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Respect my spermatozoa!

Rhythm and Balls said...

The reason Gahrie feels so threatened by abortion is because no woman would willingly want to have his baby, anyway.

It's obvious. That's what his rage is about. As it is with all of them. Him and all the other human dildos.

Meade said...

" I'd love to hear some creative ways to deal with women who abort their fetuses."

1. Raise their taxes. Take the revenue a give it to mothers who have children.

Gusty Winds said...

GOP pro-life candidates have been able to hide behind the fact that abortion is so engrained in American culture, it will never become illegal. You can posture, stand on moral high ground, and never have to worry about the reality of it being illegal. The professor makes some good points here.

I don't believe Trump is pro-life. He wants to hold the Evangelical vote. His mistake was thinking he needed to pander this deeply.

I think he screwed up big time with the answer. Yuge.

But watching anti-Trump pro-life Republicans hop on him for this is hypocrisy. As the good Professor accurately illustrates, punishment is part of the endgame they seek if abortion were to be illegal.

They rightfully wish and pray it were illegal. Wish and pray it wasn't a societal necessity. But that's it.

n.n said...

The third step of a human rights movement is to stop advocating for a "final solution".

The first step of a human rights movement is to stop accepting religious instruction from gods in the twilight zone and their liberal servants on the supreme court and their henchwomen in the abortion and planning industries. A separation of cult and state.

The second step of a human rights movement is to reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value with natural imperatives.

iowan2 said...

If its against the law, shouldn't there be punishment? Like if a 8 year old kills their friend playing with the parents handgun? Or the death of a child that a parent did not put in a car seat? If there is a law. Punishment.

Browndog said...

My wife became pregnant with my son.

She bore my son.

She nurtured my son.

From conception he was my son, and as an adult he remains my son.

My Son

My point?

I don't need a woman, or Courts, to give me permission to claim my natural heir, or know he has a natural right to live.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I see Meade's floating yet another one of his many hare-brained scheme to perpetuate and incentivize poverty.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You tell 'em, n.n.! Let a thousand conspiracy theories flourish!

Renee said...

Both are human and the right to live. So are grown men.

Yes, we carry the burden of carrying a baby and primary care givers.

That's life. Abortion doesn't make our lives easier, a good husband that wants to father his kids certainly does though.

It is that preachy or even moralistic, this is how our bodies work. To reject our bodies and how they function is somehow pro-woman?

Our bodies ovulate, menstrate, carry child, and produce milk. We should live in a culture that respect where at least women respect that.

But we don't.

We live in a culture that so easily abandons the pregnant woman, and teach that abortion is the "right choice". Never gpfelt like a choice for the women I know who have had one or two.

Amanda said...

Many of the women having abortions are poor, raising their taxes might not amount to much.

Meade said...

Also, you could used the raised revenue to sterilize Rithmo.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I knew it was your son when under a microscope it looked like a brown dog.

I mean, it still had the vestigial tail at that point, (and even vestigial gills!). But what the hey. It was already attempting some hapless internet comments, and at that point the resemblance couldn't be denied.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I bet you're the type who wouldn't mind killing your own living, breathing kid, anyway, Cardinal Meade. I mean, you like to kick former friends in the pocketbook when they're homeless and destitute. So we know what you're all about: Preening.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meade said...

"Many of the women having abortions are poor, raising their taxes might not amount to much. "

That's okay, make the tax progressive. Tax rich aborters 99% and poor aborters 1%. But even the poor aborters will need to have some "skin in the game". Sorry, bad metaphor. Then give the poor aborters free contraception and make the rich aborters attend a Trump rally.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Abortion doesn't make our lives easier, a good husband that wants to father his kids certainly does though.

I just want the church to father my baby. And my body.

Somewhere between the churchly pronouncement of sexuality, especially female sexuality, as evil and individual liberty I'm sure there's got to be a happy medium.

Amanda said...

Make the rich aborters attend a Trump rally? OK that's funny.

n.n said...

Rhythm and Balls:

There is no conspiracy. Only overlapping, convergent, and opportunistic interests.

This may appear to you as a conspiracy, and it may be, but the simplest explanation is an emergent phenomenon through uncoordinated vectors, that coalesce as they progress.

That said, sarcasm will not help you establish a social or political consensus. Admittedly, criticizing people's sincere belief in gods from the twilight zone will probably only contribute to the progress of female chauvinism and a dysfunctional revolution as people stubbornly seek the moral low ground.

Gahrie said...

It never ceases to amaze me that the right assigns more rights to the fetus than the already born adult woman.

Not more...the same.

MadisonMan said...

Were women arrested and convicted pre-Roe v. Wade for having abortions? Did they serve time in prison?

(I honestly don't know)

Browndog said...

Yes, the angst of the mother struggling with the morality of killing the child of the father is so overwhelming, it's down right cruel.

If there were only a way to mitigate such feelings of guilt-

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I probably read too much into your post, n.n., as meandering and oblique as it was. But I think "natural imperatives" is a bit heavy-handed.

There already is a social/political consensus. The government is not wanted inside people's bodies. Especially not in their reproductive organs. It's a sanctimonious paternalism that smacks of the religious tyranny of the past, behind a door well slammed shut by the first amendment.

You don't want female chauvinism? I suggest you discard paternalistic male chauvinism.

That said, people don't want to see their pregnancies or births or family lives any more devalued than they do their other toil and labor. The first step toward doing away with the devaluation of both is to stop voting for political parties that fetishize privilege.

It's happening.

Amanda said...

"You don't want female chauvinism? I suggest you discard paternalistic male chauvinism."

BIngo.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Let the "How dare she not want to have MY babies!" crowd channel their supposed concern for wanted pregnancies into better FMLA laws. Then they might have some credibility.

They might also decrease some of those horrible pre-disappearance-of-vestigial-gill-stage abortions.

Bay Area Guy said...

Abortion lies at an interesting double intersection of men/women and left/right.

Intersection 1:
- Men who want easy sex without consequence
- Women who want easier sex without long-term burden

Intersection 2:
- Right-wing population control gurus who don't want millions more third world browns, blacks and yellows.
- Left-wing population control gurus who don't want millions more third world browns, blacks and yellows (but can't say this)

I'm proud of the Catholic Church for being Pro-Life. It cuts against these modern trends.

Amanda said...

As for FLMA,

No, they would rather the woman have numerous children, work full time to be able to support them all and then go to work two weeks after giving birth.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm proud of the Catholic Church for being Pro-Life. It cuts against these modern trends.

I was always proudest of the Catholic Church for being pro-geocentrism, pro-Inquisition, and pro-fascism. What a pity that those contemporary trends died with even more cutting.

If the Catholic church wants to feed the twenty, thirty, seventy whatever billions it foresees (not to mention all the HIV infections it gladly perpetuates), then let it use its own vast fortunes to fund it.

As with everything else, the church had to be dragged screaming and convulsing into accepting the supremacy of liberty. Yes, we have a society that doesn't care much about each other, but there are political and practical remedies to that, as well. The church hates that because it is not necessarily one of them. It only retains admiration when it comes to irrational people who rely on the the old-timey hocus pocus stuff. (i.e. mind control).

Rhythm and Balls said...

The American conservative's manifesto today is control your mind, and your body will follow.

Whether it's you controlling it or some unaccountable organization doesn't matter to them.

Browndog said...

As usual, Rhythm and Balls' attempt at high brow insults to validate his non-viewpoint will leave him debating himself...certain he'd won the day.

Good day

Rhythm and Balls said...

I have won the day, and have for 43 years. You dare to pretend that you can dictate to the Supreme Court of the United States, simply on the basis of tummy goo.

Gusty Winds said...

Abortion and guns. The political focus of our political death culture where only positions of absolutes are acceptable.

Trump had a chance to find middle ground. Even with evangelical support that would have stayed with him. But he blew it. He spoke too honestly. To logically. Watching the interview, it seems like he is trying to find the pro-life position inside him as he debated Matthews.

He sunk in the quicksands of the absolute.

mccullough said...

You have to give Trump credit. The reactions his comments got from Kasich and Cruz were priceless. They very evidently are condescending to women. Poor ladies, we would never hold them responsible for their conduct we want to make illegal. It's only male doctors who perform abortions we think are bad. It's the same shit with that drama queen reporter. No one would give a shit if that happened to a male reporter. We'd call him a pussy for whining about that.

Trump doesn't give a shit about winning the presidency but there is now way either of those two are going anywhere.

Phil 3:14 said...

Was Trump chewing gum?

Jason said...

Oh, what fun!

I think whatever punishment they face should be set as equal to the maximum punishment that protesters face when they are prosecuted under the RICO act for protesting.

If it's not a reasonable sentence for the women seeking abortions than it's not a reasonable sentence for the protesters either.

jr565 said...

Did anyone see the movie Primer? its about two scientists/engineers that design a tine machine. But it can only go back in time, not forward. The way it works is you set the time for a specific time, like say Monday at 8:30 AM. THat is the time you can go back to. If its wednesday you can go back in time to monday at 8:30 if you sit in the box for the same period of time, roughly as it would take to get from monday to wednesday, when you get out you've actually gotten out at the beginning when you set the time machine.

Trump REALLY needs one of those machines.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It takes no courage at all to argue that late term partial birth abortion, crushing skulls, snipping spines, all those things, it takes no courage at all to say those are choices women should have.
Wanna crush some tiny skills? Hey, the skulls are in your body, crush away. How rude of us to have a problem with your skull crushing, whatever were we thinking??

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Trump's answer is what happens when someone who is pri-choice but hasn't thought much about the issue tries to pretend that they are pro-life.
It shows he hasn't thought deeply about the issue, but anyone who didn't already know that I hasn't been paying attention.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If I say ”you aren't allowed to day code to punch someone if their face for no reason" does that mean I am trailing to respect your ability to make hour own decisions regarding whether to punch someone in the face? We restrict all sorts of choices by law. Saying "you aren't allowed to consume heroin" and "you aren't allowed to refuse service to gay people" involves restrictions on what people may choose to do. Tbjkse restrictions say almost nothing about whether we trust people to make their own decisions in those areas. The law restricts choice/freedom. That doesn't bother thou in most cases but does bother you here.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Thou should be you...stupid Fire keyboard, sorry.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The same person who was moved to tears when confronted with unempathetic Libertarians who were freedom of association absolutists is apparently not moved at all by the fact that millions of Americans think late term abortion or even infanticide are perfectly OK for any reason any woman chooses (including just convenience).
I honestly do not know what to make of that.

The people on the anti-abortion side are mean and hateful towards women; they want to restrict women's autonomy and put them in jail. OK, fine, you are better than them.
The people on the pro-abortion side are kind and gentle and think destroying a developing fetus at any point up to a moment before its birth should be fine-not only legal but damn near celebrated as a brave choice and method of self actualization and empowerment. They believe no procedure, however gruesome, should be off limits hwne it comes to what a woman can choose to do to destroy the "clump of cells."

No tears, though. No one is moved. Advances in medical science (pushing viability ever further back) don't mean anything.

Fine. Have all the abortions you want. Nell, make me pay part of the cost for them, fine. Keep telling me how special and important women are as the ones who keep our population growing/keep our species alive while you simultaneously make sure any woman can choose to have as many abortions as she wants anytime. It makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent with everyone else--who am I to object?

PianoLessons said...

I'm not a lawyer (though I have stayed at the Holiday Inn) but I am amazed at the lack of knowledge among both right and left media folks commenting on this issue.

Didn't we ALL study Griswold VS Connecticut in our college Poli Sci class - or was it just me as a student at UW-Madison back in the day. There were punishing fines on the women!

Good Grief. Google it for cry eye - especially Law School students.

I swear we have a serious knowledge deficit now days. Depressing.

PianoLessons said...

Also to Rhythm and Balls who said:

"It [Catholic Church] only retains admiration when it comes to irrational people who rely on the the old-timey hocus pocus stuff. (i.e. mind control)."

You are a perfect Marxian Communist - Bravo. You probably have a taxpayer supported job as a scientist with enough income to donate to Freedom From Religion at every opportunity. Good for you and all of your elite class.

The Catholic Church is to be admired for one thing - a REFUSAL to allow anyone other than God to control life. In our times this goes way beyond abortion or birth control - cloning, genetic selection, the death penalty, assisted suicide, rationing of care, designer babies and all the way to the artificial non-human intelligent creatures who will obey Big Brother from birth. Hate the Catholic Church but at least give it credit for being completely consistent.

There is NOTHING more frightening than the Progressive Left now days which dictates "control the language and the sheep will follow". The life engineering scientists can't wait to populate the PostHuman World - and you know this.

Orwell did warn us all - right? He who controls the Lange Controls the World.

And when you mock the "hocus pocus" stuff of those in the Catholic faith, it's blasphemy. It's offensive. Catholics know what that means regarding Transubstantiation. We know how to respond to agnostics and atheists about it. But I wonder -

Would you possibly extend your mockery to the Islam faith - the Quran - Mohamed? What say you about the "mind control" of Islam?

I dare you.

Mick said...

Women, as a group, are obviously not capable of making moral or political decisions. They brought us the Usurper Obama, with 60% of them voting for the Kenyan Usurper and killer of America (including the "lawprof"---TWICE!!), and most supporting the Treasonous murderer Clinton, simply because of "gender identity". Women, including the "lawprof" think the murder of the unborn is some sort of "choice" that they are "entitled" to. The practice of abortion is a stain upon America. God will not be mocked. That women, as a group, are OK with the murder of the unborn, when they are supposed to be our nurturers, is an indication of how far we have fallen as a moral nation. Only a moral nation deserves the protection of the Republic's laws, and can sustain a Republic. This is why we have now devolved into a corrupt Oligarchy. If a nation cannot protect its most vulnerable, then it will also not be protected.

The constant probe for the "gotcha" moment by the media in their desperate attempt to destroy Trump is a disgusting thing to watch. Especially when they ignored EVERYTHING about the Usurper and EVERYTHING about the criminal HRC. They cannot even muster one question to Clinton, when there are obviously many. They could take her out of the "race" in one "news conference" if there were actually real journalists that were more than propagandists. They could have eliminated Obama and sent him back to the Community Organizer streets (or Kenya) way back in 2008 if there were any real 4th estate.

Craig said...

Charge them with a miscarriage of justice and let them plead it down to just a miscarriage, then give them community service.

Achilles said...

This whole thread just demonstrates why the government monopoly on force has no place in this issue particularly at the federal level. This is a deeply personal issue

I also just got done with the 8 or 9 week ultrasound. That is a baby. The church and the community will do a better job protecting that baby than the government will. If you want to stop women from having abortions support them and get them into good relationships with good community backing. Not with the police.

tim in vermont said...

Not sure if this assumes that women are incapable of thinking for themselves, unless you are against punishing draftees who don't report on the same grounds.

Martha said...

Achilles said it best.
You cannot legislate morality.
A woman who would willingly kill her unborn child is operating on a sub-human level.
Remember birth control is now readily available.
You can have sex without consequence.
Educate these women!

Hagar said...

A befuddled Trump may still be better than a false and deceitful Cruz or Kasich.

Brando said...

I have sympathy for Trump here--his initial answer makes logical sense if you consider abortion to be murder. Clearly, the woman hiring the doctor to perform it is no different than a person hiring a hit man. It is a natural consequence of considering abortion to be murder.

His backtrack does of course infantilize women--why assume a woman deciding to have an abortion is a "victim"? It would be understandable if she were mentally unable to make that decision, but being stressed out from a pregnancy doesn't render you a child (otherwise, we'd have to prevent pregnant women from making any contracts).

This doesn't mean pro-lifers who don't want to "punish" women who have abortions are necessarily wrong, though--if you see abortion as a wrong and tragic act but not exactly a "murder" then you could justify not punishing the woman.

Brando said...

Part of this of course is a natural consequence of Trump's "off the cuff" style--a more seasoned politician would have turned the question around, pointing out that currently we have an entire political party welded to the notion that even a late term abortion performed simply because the baby was the wrong gender should be completely legal, with no restrictions or age limits, and here the media wants to split hairs over a hypothetical that isn't on the table in the federal sphere (the GOP stance is anti-Roe, i.e., let the states regulate it). Put the leftist media and the Dems on the hot seat on this issue.

Birches said...

Kudos Renee. You said it best.

wendybar said...

As a conservative, that would never get an abortion, because I feel it is murder...Donald is WRONG!!! Trump responded in a manner that is completely unforgivable to the pro-life movement:


“Look, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, conservative Republicans, would say, ‘Yes, it should,’” Trump responded.

It is clear that Trump has gotten his views on what pro-lifers (or the Republican Party or conservative Republicans) think from people like Planned Parenthood, to which he has donated money.

I don not know anybody who thinks the woman should be punished. He makes it up as he goes along.



Saint Croix said...

I think one of the issues here is that many women suffer miscarriages, and there is no desire to investigate these women--who are already undergoing the great pain of a loss of a wanted child--with a criminal investigation. That is perhaps why we want to focus on abortionists, those people who are in the business of causing these deaths.

Nor do I think it is fair or honest to suggest that this is sexism. After all, many women were prosecuted in the Gosnell murders. They were abortion providers, prosecuted for performing abortions and for killing newborns.

You could of course prosecute the mothers (or the fathers) for being co-conspirators, for paying for the infanticide. But we want to draw a sharp distinction between suffering a miscarriage and performing an abortion.

Saint Croix said...

Also we ought to make clear that the Constitution forbids punishing people for abortions retroactively. For instance, if we recognize the baby has a right to life, and make abortion a crime in 2020, we cannot punish people for abortions performed in 2010. The ex post facto clause forbids this sort of retroactive application of criminal laws.

This is why the slave-owners were not punished for kidnapping and other crimes after the humanity of Africans was recognized.

Birches said...

Guys (and I mean that in the literal sense)

This is not a murder for hire situation. This is a genocide, war crimes situation. Women are taught they are committing no violence, it's an unwanted clump of cells, like a gangly mole. They are shielded from seeing the person by activists who will not allow ultrasounds or education on their child's development.

But the doctors know better. They are the architects and directors of the final solution.

CStanley said...

There is no neat answer that wraps up all the loose ends when it comes to abortion, because pregnancy is a unique situation. The act is a murder but there are extenuating circumstances.

If Althouse and other pro-legal abortionists can reconcile the acceptance of the mother having a legal option to kill even though they personally feel the killing is murder, than she should also allow for the inconsistency on the prolife side when we say that we believe a woman who commits this act commits murder but we choose to show mercy and not require punishment.

The reasoning is that the state should not license people to kill. (And yes, I am also pro life when it comes to capital punishment.) Laws restricting abortion should be based on what physicians are permitted to do under authority of their professional licensure, and restrictions on non-licensed persons for conducting those acts.

And along with the need for mercy, there is the problem of unintentional fetal death. It would be problematic if every miscarriage had to be treated as a murder investigation.

And finally, I believe that the need for mercy arises from society's collective guilt. Men do not have sufficient moral standing when they seek sex without responsibility, and society at large doesn't have standing because we either can't or won't provide the resources to care for children born into these circumstances. For those reasons, we should show mercy toward the pregnant women but we should not sanction the act, thus restrict doctors and punish no licensed individuals who might try to perform abortions when doctors are not permitted to do so.

Meade said...

"when we say that we believe a woman who commits this act commits murder but we choose to show mercy and not require punishment."

So you're allowing abortion. How are you any more "pro-life" than Althouse is?

kjbe said...

" I'd love to hear some creative ways to deal with women who abort their fetuses."

1. Raise their taxes. Take the revenue a give it to mothers who have children.


More unnecessary vaginal probes, excessive waiting periods, government mandated lectures from doctors, and pointless guilt trips, please.

gerry said...

Consider killing a developing human being not being punished vs. punishing bakers whose religious sensibilities compels them to avoid servicing a so-called same-sex wedding party.

We're off the moral rails. But it has been a good run, eh?

Hasn't Utah passed a law compelling abortionists to administer painkillers to unborn babies who can feel pain before being aborted, especially because late-term abortions usually involve dismemberment? Does anyone object to that? Or is this consideration a pointless guilt trip?

tim in vermont said...

@gerry, you keep thinking that there is some principle involved in how liberals think that can be abstracted from their rules! There isn't. It's all totally arbitrary and based on feelings. If you want to know what a liberal will think on any given subject, you have to ask them. They think we all spit talking points because we think about stuff with a set of principles and often come to the same conclusions. That's not how they work, they are told what to think by their hive mind.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

New product idea - infant onsie with words "Clump of Cells."

Meade said...

Or red ball caps that say "Make Clumps of Cells Great Again"

Sammy Finkelman said...

>> Unless you think the denial is based on women's inability to think for themselves and ascertain what's right and wrong and define the meaning of life for themselves

Well, there's a possible conflict of interest here. In ethical matters it is not considered good for a person to be ajudge in his own case, although I suppose few people would want to forgo it.

CStanley said...


So you're allowing abortion. How are you any more "pro-life" than Althouse is?

You have a different definition of allowing than I do.

To address the question though, I suppose it's like the difference between "allowing" heroin use by favoring laws against pushers but not users, and "allowing" it by having school kids taught that drugs are ok because it's normal to want to get high, and licensing doctors to dispense heroin on demand.

CStanley said...

I'd be interested to know what Professor Althouse thinks of an analogy between the proposed illegality of abortion performed by a third party and laws against assisted suicide. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) people are not held legally accountable for suicide attempts but assisted suicide is illegal in most states. Seems pretty analogous to me.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It's interesting to think about what a society that holds nothing sacred actually looks like.

n.n said...

HoodlumDoodlum:

Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems to have a periodic recurrence throughout human history.

If it moves, tax it. If it has an opening, fuck it. If it cries, abort it.

grackle said...

Every single person who thinks abortion should be illegal should face the fact that it's going to take big government with investigation and enforcement agencies to deal with any anti abortion laws.

I am against abortion. I believe life begins at conception. I of course favor the current laws against partial birth abortion. But I’m not sure putting folks in jail for non-partial birth abortion is going to work out well for us anti-abortion folks. Unlike the commentor I am not worried about the stress on enforcement agencies. My view is that locking them up would create legal martyrs and hurt the anti-abortion movement, a movement that has been gaining slowly but steadily in public approval in recent years. Creating martyrs could reverse that trend.

On Trump’s answer: It has been evident for some time that Trump is not well-versed on the minutiae of some issues. This Trump supporter doesn’t promote Trump because I believe Trump can wade deep into the weeds of a variety of social issues. We like him for his attitude.

We like it that he owes nothing to big donors.

We like it that he’s not likely to travel overseas in order to apologize for America.

We like it that he is wholeheartedly and proudly patriotic.

We like it that he is knocking over the PC barriers to the needed debate on a variety of issues – illegal immigration being one of the most prominent.

We like it that his opponents seem to be following his lead on the refugees. These days they are sounding like Trump on this issue. It should be recalled that he was roundly denounced for these views and called a racist until they realized how popular Trump’s viewpoint was with GOP constituents.

On Trump and women: I see a lot of women at the Trump rallies. Until I see that female popularity wane in his crowds I’ll not be worrying about whether Trump can appeal to women.

There are more but I’ll finish with this: I believe Trump has a better chance of beating the Democrat than any establishment candidate. The Democrats have made a science out of how to beat a GOP establishment candidate. They’ve put this science to work on the last 3 GOP candidates for POTUS. That’s who they want their opponent to be – someone like Romney, Dole, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio or Ryan. The Democrats will have the MSM firmly in their camp. Trump is the only figure in recent years that is able to beat the MSM at their biased game.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

grackle:

The first step is to close the death chambers in abortion clinics (i.e. reactive parenthood), investigate the clinical cannibals at Planned Parenthood (i.e. planned parenthood), and curtail if not end the incentive for this negative progress in a civilized society.

The second step is to replace the established pro-choice cult in government, schools, and culture with a religion (i.e. moral philosophy) that affirms the science and virtue of human life.

After that... Well, let's see where it goes. However, we cannot afford to sustain the corruption of government, science, and religion under the State-established pro-choice cult and its doctrine of selective principles, and the tolerance of liberal (i.e. variable) interpretations of science, religion/morality, laws, etc.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Would you possibly extend your mockery to the Islam faith - the Quran - Mohamed?

LOL. Yes. Every day.

What say you about the "mind control" of Islam?

Pretty much everything. It's pernicious.

But if pride in being better than Islam is all the Catholic Church has going for it, I can't say I'm all that impressed.

And when you mock the "hocus pocus" stuff of those in the Catholic faith, it's blasphemy. It's offensive. Catholics know what that means regarding Transubstantiation. We know how to respond to agnostics and atheists about it. But I wonder -

Boo hoo. Then move to England if you hate free speech and want to implement a right to not be "offended", whatever that means.

Problem is, nearly every Western society that promulgates laws to protect your feelings only does it for the "other, exotic" minority. The Muslims. Crazy, huh?

I guess you're going to have to be better than them through other means. Rational, unemotional means.

Hate the Catholic Church but at least give it credit for being completely consistent.

It's consistently stupid and arrogant, I'll grant you that. Spreading AIDS in Africa in order to stick to its consistent hatred of rubbers. Talk about controlling life (controlling other people's lives, that is), controlling the world and Big Brother. Their so-called consistency is morally disgusting. Obsessing over sex while perpetrating the largest and most notorious pedophile ring and fighting to spread a ravaging AIDS epidemic through the poorest and least developed continent - many countries affected now with 10% HIV infection rates or greater. The Catholic Church is an absolute disgrace and you know it.