Posted on 03/31/2016 10:57:26 AM PDT by Morgana
Donald Trump’s comment, and subsequent backtracking, of a claim that women should be “punished” for having an abortion has sparked furious debate nationwide and within pro-life circles.
In a new interview, pro-life Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich says he disagrees with punishing women who have abortions by putting them in jail. Here’s what Kasich had to say:
TODD: “Chris Matthews asked Donald Trump should there be some form of punishment for women who have an abortion? And Trump says yeah, I think there should be a punishment. He didn’t describe what that punishment is. I know you’re somebody who believes abortion should be banned. should women who get abortions be punished?”
KASICH: “Absolutely not. I do have exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, but abortions shouldn’t be punished. I’m sure Donald Trump will say he didn’t say it or he was misquoted or whatever, but i don’t think so. I don’t think that’s an appropriate response and it’s a difficult enough situation than to try to punish somebody.”
TODD: “Let me ask this, how do you enforce a ban on abortion?”
KASICH: “Look, I think it’s rape, incest and life of the mother and you build some restrictions around it. But I think you have to be very careful on the way you do it.”
Why?
Without the operation of law, the baby suffers and dies. So the woman never suffers alone. However, question is how do we square our commitment to rule of law with a simultaneous position that some laws can be broken with no legal consequence to the law breaker.
Hey John, you’re in the Republican party running against Hillary, remember you jerk?
He got punished with 2, and their mammy.
Because women, as a group, are "Goldilocks."
The abortionist got prosecuted if the woman died. The baby was irrelevant.
Please elaborate.
So, why don’t we just punish the drug dealer and leave the drug user alone? If you work to put a dent into the demand, there will be downward pressure on the supplier and you can, then work, unabated, on changing the user, thus improving society and the fabric of this country. If abortion was made illegal, there needs to be consequences for both, if you really want to get to the root of the problem. It ia understandable why Trump was advised to walk back his answer. Mathews was talking over him and debating him, instead of being a journalist and interviewing him. The media framed the exchange and the phony pro-lifers backed them and there is nowhere else for Trump to go, except to play along.
And Chrissy Matthews was playing the gotcha game
Posed as a hypothetical...:But IF abortions is against the law, I mean it’s illegal, so yes or no would you punish the woman?
It is the type of nonsense that Georgie Stephanopolous pulled last time around by asking if one of the candidates would out law birth control pills
When someone murders someone else, yes there should be punishment for the murderer, severe punishment.
What we have here is some FReepers who don’t think children in the womb are human beings and that abortion is murder. Sad that is what is happening here.
IMHO when abortion is made illegal (and I’m sure that will happen), there should be a penalty for both the woman and the doctor. Much more so for the doctor, such as taking license away; the penalty for the woman should be much less severe, but there should be some kind of penalty; community service or fine? I don’t know, just thinking out loud. But if something is illegal, there should be a reaction.
Obviously there should also be more recourse and help for women who are pregnant and do not/cannot for some reason care for the baby, as well as what used to be called home for unwed mothers.
Not government funded or run, either; and with less regulations/red tape and lawsuits, private charitable organizations including faith based ones, could fill these needs.
Wasn’t the question to Trump that if Abortion was banned?
Are we a nation of laws? Can anyone disobey any law they please? Why do we even need congress, a President or law enforcement if we’re just going to do whatever the heck we want anyway?
Crazy times.
The principle is the same in all cases of justice. Justice in action consists in requiting the positive with a positive and a negative with a negative. One act represents cause and the other effect. One is the behavior and the other is the payment appropriate to it.
The recompense appropriate in content and scale to a particular case must be determined contextually, by reference to the nature and merits of the case. A negative can be a condemnation, the withholding of friendship, or even outright ostracism, or the loss of money or prerogative, including in criminal case the loss of freedom or of life itself.
I also see the pot issue as equally corrupting to future generations as abortion has been.
hmmm....that is a really silly statement...
If anyone is against women being punished for having abortions then they are phony pro-lifer’s!
So Trump is a phony?
Agreed! But he should never have gotten involved in the subject at all dealing with theoretical situation.
Exactly! Trump should have been smarter then to fall for it.
Cruz and Kasich didn't even have the guts to admit that you don't make laws and not have penalties attached to them for breaking them.
Their view is more akin to the paternal 19th century where women where not considered responsible for their actions.
No, what they think is that the woman is not to be held responsible for her actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.