New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump: punish women who have abortions

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
I saw that interview when it happened. Didn't go as the left spins it.
It went according to the video where you hear Trump saying women who have abortions should be punished. He was just repeating the Republican position.
In OH, there are 20 Republican legislators who not only want to ban abortion, but then want women who have an abortion to be charged with murder.
 

gigi

Mayor
^ Newspeak.


Can't be done; that's not how the court operates.


Julie did post video proof. What did you see that would contradict it?
He drilled Trump longer than that clip shows on abortion.
If something is against the law, any candidate would agree that anyone who breaks a specific law should be punished. That's not unusual. So he takes abortion, and Trump's position on abortion, and asks the what if question. What if abortion were banned? Should those who break a law be punished?
It's a lose lose for a candidate. If he said No, then the next question would surely be well, why ban it then if we're not going to deter law breaking with punishment. Why have laws if there are no consequences for breaking them? If he says yes, then it becomes about being anti-woman. And that's all Matthews was after in the first place.

And if you notice, when Trump turns the tables on him it's okay for Matthews to say "well, I accept the teaching authority of my church" but he doesn't think abortion should be banned. Matthews allows himself to hold two conflicting views on the topic, but he's pinning Trump against the wall. If Matthews is telling the truth about accepting his churches' teaching on abortion yet doesn't feel it should be banned, then his view would be no different than Trump's if Trump had been allowed to say what he was trying to.

This is no different than when leftists badgered Dan Cathy, founder of Chic Fil A, about marriage. He refused to answer that question several times. When they finally badgered him enough, he gave in and shared HIS view. Next thing you know, they spun it as Cathy being anti-gay and a judgemental religious fanatic who wanted to push his views on everyone else, completely ignoring the fact that they had to DRAG his view out of him . It was just a matter of being POed at a fundamentalist Christian who made good, and an attempt to take him down. But the Cathy family held fast to their trust in God, and they're still here.

Frankly, I think that Cathy incident and the Duck Dynasty guy's incident opened a lot of people's eyes to the bully technique and so they recognized it next time around.

I have several prochoice friends who voted for Trump.
 
Last edited:

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
He drilled Trump longer than that clip shows on abortion.
If something is against the law, any candidate would agree that anyone who breaks a specific law should be punished. That's not unusual. So he takes abortion, and Trump's position on abortion, and asks the what if question. What if abortion were banned? Should those who break a law be punished?
It's a lose lose for a candidate. If he said No, then the next question would surely be well, why ban it then if we're not going to deter law breaking with punishment. Why have laws if there are no consequences for breaking them? If he says yes, then it becomes about being anti-woman. And that's all Matthews was after in the first place.

And if you notice, when Trump turns the tables on him it's okay for Matthews to say "well, I accept the teaching authority of my church" but he doesn't think abortion should be banned. Matthews allows himself to hold two conflicting views on the topic, but he's pinning Trump against the wall. If Matthews is telling the truth about accepting his churches' teaching on abortion yet doesn't feel it should be banned, then his view would be no different than Trump's if Trump had been allowed to say what he was trying to.

This is no different than when leftists badgered Dan Cathy, founder of Chic Fil A, about marriage. He refused to answer that question several times. When they finally badgered him enough, he gave in and shared HIS view. Next thing you know, they spun it as Cathy being anti-gay and a judgemental religious fanatic who wanted to push his views on everyone else, completely ignoring the fact that they had to DRAG his view out of him . It was just a matter of being POed at a fundamentalist Christian who made good, and an attempt to take him down. But the Cathy family held fast to their trust in God, and they're still here.

Frankly, I think that Cathy incident and the Duck Dynasty guy's incident opened a lot of people's eyes to the bully technique and so they recognized it next time around.

I have several prochoice friends who voted for Trump.
Trump know his party wants Roe overturned and he will appoint the judges to do it.
 

gigi

Mayor
Trump know his party wants Roe overturned and he will appoint the judges to do it.
Julie we're going around in circles on this thread. If you have an issue with RVW being overturned ( and I don't think it will be) your anger should be directed at the justices who gave you RVW. They said, specifically, in the decision that they were not qualified to determine when life begins and that if scientific evidence of life beginning in the womb ever came to light, the decision MUST be revisited. That evidence has come to light.

You and other prochoice folks can hash about what defines a life all day. But that's editorializing. That's each of you opining about what gives a human life value. And you disagree with each other because you don't have facts behind you.
What the justices were leaving room for back in 1973 was the existence of a living human being. The fact that the unborn are not conceived in a state wherein they'd be viable outside their mothers' was never a stipulation.

Anyway, it really wasn't RVW that brought abortion rights. It was Doe V. Bolton.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Julie we're going around in circles on this thread. If you have an issue with RVW being overturned ( and I don't think it will be) your anger should be directed at the justices who gave you RVW. They said, specifically, in the decision that they were not qualified to determine when life begins and that if scientific evidence of life beginning in the womb ever came to light, the decision MUST be revisited. That evidence has come to light.

You and other prochoice folks can hash about what defines a life all day. But that's editorializing. That's each of you opining about what gives a human life value. And you disagree with each other because you don't have facts behind you.
What the justices were leaving room for back in 1973 was the existence of a living human being. The fact that the unborn are not conceived in a state wherein they'd be viable outside their mothers' was never a stipulation.

Anyway, it really wasn't RVW that brought abortion rights. It was Doe V. Bolton.
I look forward to it.
 

Phat Mama

Council Member
Video unavailable
"Donald Trump: Women deserve..."
The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.





whoopsie
 

Phat Mama

Council Member


He promised to nominate to SCOTUS someone who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade.
Wowza, biggest lie I've read from you to date.


someone who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Supremes can't overturn Roe V Wade on a whim.

There must be an actual case brought before the SC in order for them to even consider such a thing.



You really need to stop spreading lies and rumors.

Happy wife, happy life.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Video unavailable
"Donald Trump: Women deserve..."
The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.





whoopsie
It was well-documented at the time....in print.

I thought you freaky con boys would get off on having women punished for having abortions....like Trump stupidly said.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=3rXdW4LcA6Xl5gKO1aa4Bw&q=Trump+said+women+should+be+punished+for+having+abortions&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Trump+said+women+should+be+punished+for+having+abortions&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1199.11691..12407...2.0..0.189.5104.52j6......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i3j0i10.OK-6RACpiwQ
 

Phat Mama

Council Member

Which Trump didn't say ... in print


Donald Trump on abortion - from pro-choice to pro-prison

Donald Trump has said that "some form of punishment" should be in place for women who have abortions, if the practice was banned.

Trump released a statement that
only the doctor or practitioner should be punished,

not the woman.



Hmmmm


there was a video ---- I just watched it ----weird it's scrubbed all over????



Anyhow link should include video.
There's a transcript............ Which you would have found had you used the link you provided



;) ;) ;)



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dont-change-abortion-laws/




Concerns me, if you represent liberals, your lack of reading comprehension and your penchant for taking documented truths and attempting to turn them into lies.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top