All alone Trump saw further down the anti-abortion road and showed the rest of us the result of making abortion a crime. The comparison to a bank robbery, robbery being a crime, and calling the getaway driver a victim means the person who facilitated the robbery like the woman who facilitated the abortion is not a part of the abortion. Trump is brilliant.
What motivated Chris Matthews, a staunch Roman Catholic to press the issue of punishment for a woman who aborts a pregnancy? Was Matthews oblivious to the consequences of his question? Had he ever asked it before? Here’s the lead-up to Trumps abortion response.
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think …
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it …
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you: But what do you say about your church?
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe …
TRUMP: No, but …
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.
It’s very clear that Trumps answer depends on whether or not abortion is a crime. It isn’t a crime so it’s a hypothetical question meaning it’s conjecture, not based on the actual facts that exist, it’s based on speculation, and in this case it’s not based on the law. It’s conjecture, a sort of what if? What if abortion becomes a crime is the hypothetical basis of not only the question but the answer which becomes in sequence a hypothetical based on a hypothetical. A secondary consequence of the first premise; a second premise piled on the first premise. It’s clearly a conclusion based on a non-existent law.
And it’s brilliant because is showed up the part of the abortion question that’s been avoided by the anti-choice crowd, viz., what about the woman? Abortion has been side-tracked to be about the fetus with no consideration of the pregnant woman. Perhaps the tide against woman has turned a bit from not considering her in the abortion argument when it should be about the woman. Perhaps the woman will get some attention now that Trump correctly hypothesized and answered what should happen to the pregnant woman if abortion is made a crime.
Soft-pedaling abortion and sending it down the side track of making it about the fetus has worked against abortion ever since the ultra-sound image of a fetus was used in the advertising campaign to try to ban abortion. The bottom line is the right of the woman to her life. If abortion is a crime it makes abortion murder. If the fetus is murdered, which it isn’t, – but if the law is changed into a grotesque mandate that a woman’s right to her life, meaning in the context of abortion a woman’s right to her own body is not a right then the concept of Rights, of Individual rights, the moral principal upon which Western Society is based is wrong. Another basis for the law must be found if a woman has no right to her own body. If that happens, a man doesn’t have the right to his body either and by sequence, neither does a child. the concept of Rights is destroyed and replaced by the ideas of the state which destroys the West. it is their antagonism toward the principle of rights that makes the anti-abortion crowd willing to engage in both overt and covert arguments to destroy a woman’s right to her body.