Aborted morality.

…[what a woman] wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.

Amanda Marcotte

Trump created a mini scandal this week on the topic of abortion.  He made the mistake of taking pro life advocates on their word that they considered abortion murder, and in an interview stated that if abortion is made illegal women who illegally abort their children should face some form of punishment.  As CNN explains, this unified both the pro and anti abortion groups against Trump:

By suggesting that women who get an abortion should face punishment, Trump managed to unite advocates on both sides of the issue. Abortion opponents have pushed for punishment for doctors who perform abortions, but not women who receive them. That Trump struggled with this issue — a core holding of these advocates — underscored for some that he is new to the conservative fight…

After the interview Trump quickly backtracked his comment, explaining that women who abort their children are victims:

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. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.

Cruz issued a statement blasting Trump for not understanding the pro life position.  He explained that women who abort their children should not be punished for doing so, but instead should be celebrated for their ability to give birth:

Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention. On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life. Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

Both Trump’s second statement and Cruz’s statement above are in line with with the pro life movement, as CNSNews.com explains in Pro-Life Leaders Say Abortionists Should Be Punished, Not Their Women Victims.

Pro-life leaders were vociferous in their rejection of Donald Trump’s statement to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that pro-lifers believe women should be punished for having an abortion, pointing out that their longstanding position is that women are also victims of abortionists as well as their unborn babies.

In this case even Matt Walsh finds himself in agreement with Trump’s second statement:

victims

In other recent tweets Walsh compares the head of Planned Parenthood to Pol Pot, and refers to abortion as murder.

Trump’s blunder was believing that pro life activists mean these kinds of statements.  If they really believed abortion was murder, a woman who put a hit out on her unborn child would merit punishment along with the rest of the murder-for-hire conspiracy.  After all, she is entrusted by God to protect this child, and legally she is the only one who can decide to kill it.  What Trump didn’t understand until after the interview is these kinds of cartoonish demonstrations are not to be taken seriously.  This is what conservatives do, especially Christian conservatives.

It is worth noting here that the source of outrage against Trump’s original statement isn’t that he proposed something that was right morally but ill-advised politically.  The pile on from the pro life leaders was a histrionic objection to Trump implying that a woman who kills her unborn child bears some culpability for the child’s death.  The official pro life position states that women who have abortions are merely victims.  While it is true that women are more easily deceived, this doesn’t absolve women of responsibility for their sins.  Moreover, in this case it is the pro life leaders themselves who are assisting in the deception by telling women in advance that they are merely victims if they have an abortion.  This is cruel to women, and the cruelty comes from cowardice of speaking the truth about women and sin.

This entry was posted in Amanda Marcotte, CNSNews.com, Matt Walsh, Motherhood, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

178 Responses to Aborted morality.

  1. Hmm says:

    Where I fall on this is that the woman who aborts is guilty of a sin; the one who brings about that abortion is guilty of a crime. Sin is not punishable under law; crime is. I am quite sure that some women who enter the abortion clinic are victimized, but it is doing all women a disservice to allow them to disclaim all responsibility. There can be no healing that way.

  2. ayatollah1988 says:

    @Hmm

    Why is it that the priority is “healing” when a woman commits infanticide? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about justice?

  3. The Question says:

    Few thoughts of mine.

    Cruz’s statement is a clinical definition of cuckservatism. Instead of bringing attention to the practices of Planned Parenthood and questioning what kind of woman would do such a thing to their child, he celebrates the dignity of such women. Classic status signaling to those who will never vote for him come hell or high water.

    Walsh’s logic is intriguing. Women who have abortions are victims, but men who are reluctant to marry such women are peter pans who need to grow up and not be so terrified of marriage. If he thinks it’s just progressive blue-haired feminists getting their kid’s sucked out of the womb with a vacuum, he’s naive.

    Trump’s logical and moral statement flushed out the nest.The established pro-life movement doesn’t want the abortion issue going anywhere. This is the Catch-22 of modern political activism. You don’t actually want the problem to go away; you just want to contain it. If it goes away you have to find something else to do for a living.

    I’m no Trumpite, but we’re venturing into Alice in Wonderful territory when a crass three-time divorced New York billionaire takes a stronger, more coherent stance on abortion than the pro-life movement.

  4. Pingback: Aborted morality. | Neoreactive

  5. Giraffe says:

    Where I fall on this is that the woman who aborts is guilty of a sin; the one who brings about that abortion is guilty of a crime. Sin is not punishable under law; crime is.

    That is remarkably stupid.

  6. m11nine says:

    Its simple male logic to say: if made illegal then punishment. This country is hopeless.

    Even major pro-lifers chimed in to this kerfuffle and disavowed punishment for the “blameless” women seeking a hypothetical illegal abortion. The feminists own everything, up to and including the pro-life movement.

    Its a head-shaking moment as a pro-lifer. I will attend a CPC fundraiser dinner (a former crisis pregnancy center, rebranded as a generic women’s clinic) in a couple weeks and I never imagined even that room full of so-called “pro-lifers” could be split this easily.

    I think I will try to strike up conversation with men there to see how deep this goes. “If abortion were illegal someday, should the mother be punished?”

  7. Yes. Trump gets things done. This isn’t his top position, but when somebody asked him about it, he responded logically. If you make something illegal, but they do it anyway, there is usually some sort of punishment. Those ‘pro-life’ people who disagree with that statement are not committed to ending abortion- they are committed to having a political issue to either run on or make a living with.

  8. Pingback: Aborted morality. – Manosphere.com

  9. The Political is Personal:
    http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/30/the-political-is-personal/

    Even the right for women to have safe and legal abortions finds it’s root in women’s want to mandate an insurance of their Hypergamous impulses. Nothing says “he wasn’t the right guy” like the unilateral power to abort a man’s genetic legacy in utero.

  10. mrb4852 says:

    If abortion is illegal and a woman gets one both her and the doctor have committed a crime. Its no different than buying illegal drugs from a dealer. The seller and buyer have both committed a crime. The woman is not a victim. The victim is the unborn child who is now dead.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @m11nine

    I think I will try to strike up conversation with men there to see how deep this goes. “If abortion were illegal someday, should the mother be punished?”

    One thing to pursue along this angle is abortion tourism. Right now feminists have a ship that sails into international waters to perform abortions. This would bring easy access to abortion to every woman who lives near the coast. Likewise, Canada and Mexico are easy borders to cross for most Americans. Would they leave this legal for a woman to do?

  12. If abortion is murder, as Pro-Life advocates claim, then the women who undergo abortions should be charged with murder, should such a law be passed.

    Why is this so hard to understand? Women need to be held accountable for their actions, especially if they want “equality”.

  13. SnapperTrx says:

    So let me get this straight:

    1. Abortion is murder, so if it becomes illegal….
    2. Doctors who perform abortions can be charged with murder and punished…
    3. Women who seek out the procedure, pay for the procedure, get a medical checkup for the procedure, arrive at the clinic for the procedure on the scheduled day and climb into the chair for the procedure CANNOT be charged or punished because they are victims? What about the person holding the gun to their head, what do they get charged with? Oh, wait, NOTHING, because there is no one holding a gun to their head!

    Women – firmly placed on a pedestal.

  14. Brian says:

    “Where I fall on this is that the woman who aborts is guilty of a sin; the one who brings about that abortion is guilty of a crime.”

    So she voluntarily walks in, and pays someone to kill her baby, but that’s not a sin? By your logic, if I hire someone to kill my wife, I’m not guilty of a crime either.

    The only a woman isn’t equally culpable of the abortion as the doctor is if you’re saying that women are no more capable of making important decisions than a child. In which case it would be irresponsible to continue to allow them to vote, drive, or anything else we typically allow people to do once they hit 16-18 years old.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    The cuckservative argument of “punish the abortionist, not the woman” is just another version of pedestalization, and it reminds me of the current Swedish law on prostitution: arrest the man who pays a prostitute, but let the prostitute go free.

    In both cases the clear argument is “Women cannot be held responsible for their actions”, along with “Women’s sexual options can never be limited”.

    Plus:
    If he thinks it’s just progressive blue-haired feminists getting their kid’s sucked out of the womb with a vacuum, he’s naive.

    This. Just as one can find a babymomma with one or more bastard children in just about every church nowadays, there’s almost certainly a 20-something woman with an abortion in her personal history as well. Maybe more, as babymommas tend to be more conspicuous than women who’ve had abortions. These are the women that men are encouraged to marry, and trust

  16. Cassie says:

    Yes, abortion is murder, and the women who seek out an abortion clinic to murder their defenseless baby should be punished – the same punishment that they would get if they murdered someone outside the womb – with a long prison sentence. Duh.

    While it’s true that abortionists and feminists deceive women on the realities of abortions, the women who still choose to get them can only be called victims to a small degree, since they still know that they are killing their baby for selfish reasons.

    The pro life movement should be taking God’s view on the subject: if a woman gets an abortion, she will face His judgement as a murderer, not as a victim. Justice demands this. God is good and merciful, however, and doesn’t want for any of us to perish. If the woman is remorseful, repentant, and seeks God’s forgiveness, He is merciful and will grant it. That’s where real “healing” begins. Meaning it’s dangerous to claim that a woman has no responsibility, and it’s counterproductive to do so if you really want her to be healed from her resulting despair and guilt.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo nails it.

    Hmm. I’m thinking that historically it’s been men who restrict / prohibit / ban / abortion and punish abortionists, and that historically it’s been women who make it available, want it to be an option, etc. Because men want certainty of paternity, and women want plausible deniability.

    If anything illuminates Rollo’s point about the conflict of sexual strategies between men and women, this is it. Trump gave a logical answer and the pedestalizing cuckservatives reacted in a spasm of White Knight harummphing.

  18. ayatollah1988 says:

    @Brian

    No, their retarded logic is that women who get abortions are guilty *merely* of sin, not a crime. Only the doctors are guilty of murder. The woman is only guilty of not having high enough self esteem to save herself for her husband.

  19. Heidi says:

    I’m dumbfounded at the inconsistency. Okay, maybe a few women really were coerced into getting an abortion, but most women aren’t–it’s just that the baby isn’t convenient for them. It surprised me to see all of the prolifers trotting out this idiotic “women are victims” nonsense, but perhaps it is a matter of political expediency; allegedly, about three-tenths of the women in this country have had an abortion. (I remain skeptical that this is truly the case, given the difficulty of counting unique women who have had an abortion.)

    Furthermore, this plays right into the “abortion is a women’s issue” baloney that many on the right claim to disagree with. Of course, it is not a women’s issue. It is a human rights issue, if anything is; we’re talking about the mass butchery of male and female babies, often without the consent of the babies’ fathers.

    Too bad. Trump said something I actually liked, and then furiously backtracked on it. I had hoped for better from Cruz, too. Oh, well.

  20. This is more than the 3rd rail of American politics. This is a complete death trap. Women will NOT take responsibility for their actions and they will NOT give up their power to murder unwanted spawn or give birth to them depending on her views about trapping or excluding the father.

    They…just…won’t.

    Women will vote en-masse and overwhelmingly AS A GROUP against any person who dares to even speak about women taking responsibility or having any consequences whatsoever. Cuckservatives, true blue conservatives, liberals, ultra liberals, Marxists, Bernie Sander supporters. It doesn’t matter. They WILL NOT vote for anyone who even dares to discuss taking away any of their power.

    I dare any of my brothers posting to try to reason with women on Facebook (aka the hot-hen room aka, the international brotherhood of blue-pills and manginas) about this issue (or really any issue that MIGHT affect their power to do whatever they want with no consequences. Go ahead. Tell us what you find. Your mother’s, sisters, wives, and “friends” will line up and ostracize any man.

    TLDR1: Greetings President Hillary.

    TLDR2: The Bitches are nothing but Bonobos at this point.

  21. Fred Flange ducks and covers says:

    The common law (Blackstone through the 19th century) view of abortions was, the abortionist was the perpretrator, the woman the victim. This of course a legal view from the days when, depending on where you were, women were chattel, property of their husband or family, and incapable of legal decisions or actions, i.e., vote, buy real estate, etc.

    As others have correctly noted, early feminists opposed both abortion and birth control, and the efforts of Margaret Sanger, though not for the reasons one might expect. First, the procedures were not safe – a fair enough point. Second, it was seen as a way for men to further control the lives of women.

    The depth charge in all of this is how indeed anti-abortion laws are to be enforced, and by whom. Someone has to monitor those pregnancies to be sure they go to term. Miscarriages and still births by definition will have to become potential crime scenes: the woman may say it just happened, but is she to be believed? Has to be investigated. If someone is determined to have the procedure done, what stops her if she is to be deemed no more than a “victim”? Preventive detention? Trump’s inconvenient truth brings all of this front and center.

    There once was an attempt to outlaw “abortion tourism” by Ireland in the eighties, until a perfect storm arose. A 12-year old pregnant rape victim was denied passage from Ireland to England, where the procedure would be legal. Being a minor she needed permission. Proceedings for injunctions to prevent her going and, conversely, to allow her to go ensued. It went all the way up to Ireland’s Supreme Court, which punted: finding the EU treaty granting a personal right to travel trumped (!) Ireland’s strict abortion ban, and she was allowed out of Ireland to have the abortion. A comprehensive book about the case (which is how I heard of it) is still in print there, I think.

  22. TLM says:

    Three types of women get abortions. True victims of real rape (Think Death Wish 2 rape scene), those that have real medical life threatening issues (rare in today’s advanced technological healthcare world), and murdering sluts.

    Call it choice, call it whatever they like. Taking a suction tube with a handle and nozzle that contains a sharp tip for dismembering the baby is murder. Legal or not, the last group certainly does merit punishment.
    Too bad Trump ‘clarified’ his statement.

  23. pancakeloach says:

    “Punishment” sounds so harsh. If elective abortions were made illegal, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to punish the doctor but give the poor woman ‘victim’ free, permanent birth control in the form of tying her tubes. Zero chance of recidivism that way and far cheaper than jail, and the poor girl never has to worry about “being punished with a baby” for having sex ever again.

  24. enrique says:

    http://www.tvguide.com/news/patty-dukes-son-sean-astin-was-a-good-sport-about-uncovering-his-fathers-identity/?rss=breakingnews&partnerid=yahoo&FTAG=YHF09b6e7d

    Can there actually be “cuckhold” confusion, in which various men, being cucked over a period of time, are not sure which guy is actually being “cucked”?

    It’s cool that Sean Astin is being mature about his mother’s whoring about, and her uncertainty as to who his father was. Good messaging. Sounds like all three cuckertons were eventually pals, which helps her feel comfortable.

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m dumbfounded at the inconsistency. Okay, maybe a few women really were coerced into getting an abortion, but most women aren’t–it’s just that the baby isn’t convenient for them.

    Why are you dumbfounded at the inconsistency, when “convenience of women” is a central organizing tenet of modern society?

    It surprised me to see all of the prolifers trotting out this idiotic “women are victims” nonsense, but perhaps it is a matter of political expediency;

    Pro-lifers in the US tend to be church going. As Dalrock and others have clearly shown and even documented, US churches are feminized to varying degrees, but all of them place women’s convenience above pretty much anything else. So of course the pro-lifers will get in line with the “women are victims” notion, because the alternative is to hold women responsible for their actions, and we certainly can’t have that.

    allegedly, about three-tenths of the women in this country have had an abortion. (I remain skeptical that this is truly the case, given the difficulty of counting unique women who have had an abortion.)

    That would be an interesting statistic to study, although as with all issues that really scrutinize female behavior it would have to be done with zero academic funding. Given the number of women who use abortion as their form of contraception (no, I don’t have numbers, but yes, I’m aware of some from social circles of the past) that number could be high. However it likely is over 20% across the entire population – but not evenly distributed, to be sure.

    So churchgoers, look around you next Sunday, and reflect that some of the women within eyesight singing “Jesus Is My BFF” or some other song have had at least one abortion. And yes, Micha, that goes for Catholic churches as well.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    BPP
    I dare any of my brothers posting to try to reason with women on Facebook

    You can’t reason a woman out of an emotional position. Shame, guilt, and other emotions might work, but reason? Nah.

  27. The Question says:

    At the heart of Blue Pill philosophy is a contradictory belief that women do not have the same moral agency as men and therefore aren’t as responsible for their behavior, yet at the same time they have the same rights and should be treated as equals.

    Thus, you get “you go giiirrlll” followed shortly after with “oh, you poor thing!”

    Feminists and conservatives work hand in hand here. Feminists advocate and fight for women’s “right” to do something like abortion while conservatives work hard to absolve them of any moral responsibility for their actions resulting from exercising that power. The same for hookup culture, no-fault divorce, and whatnot.

    Pick one or the other. But you can only pick one.

  28. Minesweeper says:

    It shudders me to think what God’s judgement will be on the nations that commit millions of unborn babies to the sluice. Feminism and ISIS seem to share a particularly bent for murder if you don’t fit into their “system”.

    Lets not forget, another victim in this is often the father of the child who has no say in this matter. I don’t know what I would do faced with those circumstance – go nuts ?

    It takes something to see this level of solipsism displayed on a national scale. So women arn’t even responsible for seeking out their own illegal abortions of their own children, if it comes to that.

    Ergo they arn’t responsible either for legal ones ?

  29. Joe says:

    It’s great to talk theology and red pill here but what Trump did was political malpractice. Whooops! If he’s actually trying to win, falling for this trap of a no-win question sets him back pretty hard.

  30. Scott says:

    D–

    I thought I was going crazy until I read this.

    If something is a crime, then the people involved should be punished. Even if they are women. (Or if there is more than one accomplice).

    Thank you again, sir.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question
    At the heart of Blue Pill philosophy is a contradictory belief that women do not have the same moral agency as men and therefore aren’t as responsible for their behavior, yet at the same time they have the same rights and should be treated as equals.

    Excellent summary.[*]This is also at the heart of many forms of feminism, which should come as no surprise. Now look deeper and behold the Female Imperative underlying it.

    [*] In a healthy society, responsibility and authority are in balance. No one has authority without responsibility, nor responsibility without authority. Right now men are held responsible for more and more while women have authority over more and more. This won’t end well, but it probably won’t end soon, either.

  32. Pete says:

    “reminds me of the current Swedish law on prostitution: arrest the man who pays a prostitute, but let the prostitute go free…”

    When the mousetrap catches a mouse, you don’t throw it in the trash with the dead mouse. You clean off the trap and lay it out again to catch more mice.

    Once a man is arrested for paying a prostitute, he’s now “in the system,” helping to keep divorce lawyers, probation officers, court clerks, cops etc employed. It’s all a money grab, keeping the police state wheels greased and spinning.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Minesweeper
    Lets not forget, another victim in this is often the father of the child who has no say in this matter. I don’t know what I would do faced with those circumstance – go nuts ?

    Often he never knows, or only finds out by accident later on. Plausible deniability at work. And what’s he gonna do? If he’s married, divorce her? If he’s not married, Next her? Try to “out” her to her social circle? They’ll take her side.

    Women, even in churches that are staunchly pro-life, will rally around another women who chooses to abort. Churchgoing people might consider if they’ve ever been asked to pray for a woman undergoing a procedure with no name – “Ann has to have a procedure, pray for skill for the doctor and healing for her quick recovery”. In the modern world there’s nothing that some woman isn’t willing to blab about; hystorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, whatever. So a procedure-with-no-name is very likely an abortion.

    Words vs. actions. Watch what they do, not what they say. This applies to pedestalizing, cuckservative men just as much as to women.

  34. Anon says:

    This really proves that democracy is an unviable form of government over time. Women really do oppose the many centuries of legal precedents and rights that have brought society to where it is today. Women prefer prehistoric societies where their life decisions are easy to make (reproduce with the tribe chieftain. Done.).

  35. Anon says:

    Cruz even *looks* live a cuckservative. Just look at his face. One look at him and I knew I cannot vote for that cuck..

  36. Anon says:

    TLM said :

    True victims of real rape (Think Death Wish 2 rape scene), those that have real medical life threatening issues (rare in today’s advanced technological healthcare world), and murdering sluts.

    1%, 2%, 97% respectively.

    That said, at least abortion prevented some man from being a slave for 23-26 years under a ‘child support’ judgement.

    Ideally, both laws should be repealed. But cuckservative misandry is often worse than lefty misandry in some cases, and this is it…

  37. Scott says:

    I dare any of my brothers posting to try to reason with women on Facebook (aka the hot-hen room aka, the international brotherhood of blue-pills and manginas) about this issue (or really any issue that MIGHT affect their power to do whatever they want with no consequences. Go ahead. Tell us what you find. Your mother’s, sisters, wives, and “friends” will line up and ostracize any man.

    You are correct, of course. And I do it anyway. In fact, I have “shared” this on my (and Mychaels shared) FB page with pretty much the same comment as I made above, but I added:

    I could not understand earlier this week what Trump said that was so wrong. I guess that’s why I am not a “pro-life activist.” I am not onboard with the women-as-victims narrative.

    Instead I just believe that abortion is wrong, without the political activism part.

    There is officially no political party that is willing to hold women accountable for anything, ever.

    What is likely to occur is silence. If not, it will blow up in exactly the way you describe. Even my “conservative” friends will scratch their heads at how obtuse I am. Then it will be material for my regular blog feature “Facebook conversations I have actually had.”

  38. Anon says:

    Does anyone have unbiased data about how well Trump might do with the female vote against Hillary? Can he get 46%+ of the female vote?

    The ‘female vote’ was the asbestos fiber in the lungs of civilization..

  39. Scott says:

    OK, its only been up for a few minutes and so far, I stand corrected. I must admit that. Here are the two comments I got so far, both from women:

    Woman 1 I was just talking to [husband] about this. If it’s illegal, there should be punishment for whomever is committing the crime… regardless of gender

    and

    Woman 2 I am glad you posted this. I was starting to feel like I must be missing something major, because my reaction was similar to yours. The hypothetical that was presented with was this: “If abortion were made illegal in this country, should a woman who then procures an abortion be punished?” ummm….. yes. If the consensus in this nation were ever to reach the point where abortion was (correctly) classifed as the murder, of a human being, then yes, there would have to be legal consequences for a woman who sought out and consented to an abortion. How would she not be held responsible? Did she make the choice? Unless it were a *forced* abortion, then yes she did. Does a rapist make the choice to rape? Does someone who murders a 20-yr old man make the choice to murder? (as long as we’re talking murder, not manslaughter.) Now as the laws are currently construed, she also makes that choice, and although there are no legal conseuences, there are tremendous physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. And post-abortive women do need help to overcome those conseuences. Ministering to them is worthy and helpful But does merely suffering those consequences make her a “victim?” No. No more than I am a “victim” of my choice to overeat, or to drive too fast, or to yell at my kids too much. There are consequences to every choice and action, and just saying that someone is a “victim” does not absolve them of those consequences.

    So, if the pattern holds true, I will be pleasantly surprised.

  40. Santiago Matamoros says:

    Some should point out to all these folks how horrifically sexist it is for them to dehumanize women by stripping them of their moral agency. ಠ_ಠ

  41. Scott says:

    And yes, I am aware that my FB friend list is self-selected for agreement. Roughly 30-40% of our list is at least “red-pill friendly” if not fully on board.

    But the other 60% are a garden variety cross-section of Americans.

  42. PuffyJacket says:

    Trump single-handedly exposed the entire Pro-Life movement as a fraud with just one sentence.

    Churchians take note: The least pro-life, least Christian presidential candidate in the Republican primary is more serious about tackling abortion than 99.99% of your leadership.

  43. The Tingler says:

    Question for you guys.

    I’m writing a paper for a class that’s going to be heavily influenced by this and other red pill sites. One of the points I want to make is that women were pushed into the workforce by the powers-that-be, a decision made decades ago as it was understood that more workers means a stronger economy means a more powerful nation. I saw an article to that effect linked either here or in heartiste’s comments section. Can anyone provide me with a link to an article discussing this?

  44. Crank says:

    If a woman puts out a contract to have her husband murdered, it’s important to understand that she is the real victim of that crime, and the punishment should fall strictly on the hit man. I mean, she lost her husband, right? SHE’S A WIDOW, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!!! You’re going to punish her for becoming a widow?

  45. Scott says:

    Puffy Jacket-

    Correct. You wrote what I couldn’t quite put my finger on.

  46. PuffyJacket says:

    In fairness I believe a h/t is due to Darwinian Arminian.

  47. Opus says:

    I believe that it might be time for some calm reasoned legal advice – but unfortunately you will have to listen to me (and I fear I am a little rusty) but you should firstly understand that Abortion is not Murder as it is not the destruction of a life in being. Abortion is the destruction of a foetus and it is the person who carries out the abortion who is primarily criminally responsible. That at least is the law in England. I wonder whether one of the reasons that Abortion is not, as it is in America, such a hot potato – in fact no one ever mentions it – is because in England, Abortion is not available on demand although in practice certificates for Abortion procedures (certified by not one but two medical doctors certifying that the physical or mental health of a woman who has not so far reached the twenty-sixth week of pregnancy is at risk) are handed out like confetti. I have so far this year accused in writing one medical Doctor of Abuse so I cannot be said to be timid of the Medical Profession (who I hold in fairly low esteem).

    I have never been able to get my head around the concept of killing ones own child whether in or out of the womb and would shun any woman whom I learned had done so – they don’t tend to advertise their shame. Christians get a lot of flack (sometimes from me) but one of their better traits was the ending of the Roman habit of exposure. For near two thousand years Christendom treated the unborn with decency. I have never – perhaps not surprisingly – come across it in Criminal practice.

  48. Dave says:

    Its simple male logic to say: if made illegal then punishment. This country is hopeless.

    I once learned that the major difference between a law and a piece of advice is that the former has a punishment (i.e. sanction) attached to it if not obeyed. Once you remove a law’s sanction, you reduce the law to a piece of advice.

  49. Hank Flanders says:

    This incident would be a good subject for of one John Stossel’s “You Can’t Even Talk About It” bits. I find much of Trump’s behavior despicable and don’t see any reason to trust him like some do. He has no congressional, gubernatorial, or any kind of government record for us to look at to see what kind of leader he’d make, and yet, people want to make him the leader of this country. ALL we have is his word that he would do the things he says he wants to do, not that I support all of it, anyway, but regardless, now, he’s even gone back on his word regarding supporting the eventual Republican nominee if it’s not him. However, this abortion “gotcha” is one of those situations I hate, as a person I don’t support got into trouble for saying the right thing, in this case, meaning the natural conclusion to a certain stance. He said the wrong thing politically, but I don’t want him to get in trouble for that. Instead, I want him to get in trouble for all the other wrong things he’s said.

  50. Opus says:

    @The Tingler

    One often reads in the Manosphere that the powers that be pushed women out to work to increase the tax base. I fear however that this is something of a self-serving myth. In his excellent book The Woman Racket (page 131) Steve Moxon writes ” Remarkably, the proportion of women in full-time work in Britain is the same now as it was 150 years ago”. Note please the word full-time and also note that Britain in 1860 had been experiencing the Industrial Revolution for the better part of that century and indeed before – somewhat earlier than America I believe but otherwise one imagines those figures would be replicated in America. Moxon double checked with his source Catherine Hakim [her 2003 paper] who replied that “full-time and continuous employment actually covers only about 10-15% of women in Britain”. Again I imagine the same applied to America.

  51. Pingback: By the Way… | Malcolm the Cynic

  52. Kindasorta off topic… an example of how far gone the leftist wing of the United Methodist Church has gone – http://mfsaweb.org/?p=9431

    And these are elders and ordination candidates, no less.

  53. Anon says:

    Women entering the workforce definitely does not increase the tax base, since most women don’t earn enough to be in the higher tax brackets (the top 1% pays 40% of all taxes in the US).

    The second (incorrect) belief was that women going to the workforce was to increase the labor pool. This is wrong, since women are lower productivity and not an benefit to most employers.

    The real reason is that when we transitioned to a service economy and crime dropped, it meant that service jobs were now the majority, and it simply became safer for women to commute to those jobs. Hence, they went to work.

    Nothing is wrong with that IF there was no affirmative action and SJW interference. If women can compete on their own merit, that is great. Affirmative Action is not.

  54. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, punishing women, we don’t do that. They are always the victim, always. /sarc

    Madness, The Don lost a lot of his male supporters for back tracking on this issue. Women who abort their unborn children are murderers and the Doctors are their assistants.

    Furthermore, what about the responsibility women have for the actions they take? They want equality, right? Or was that just a joke? If they choose to have sex and they choose to have abortions, the choice to commit the acts is theirs, no one is forcing them. Therefore, they are culpable. What Donald said is straight forward logic about crime and punishment.

    Pure madness. Still, I love the furor that Donald has caused in American Politics. Especially the ‘Fields’ affair! I love seeing the whole Political spectrum shitting their pants in unison. I’m under no illusion that he will win but man has the farce of Democracy been shown for what it is. Excellent!

  55. Concerned Citizen says:

    This has never been a question for me. Of course the women are guilty of a crime as well. The person who hires the hit man is guilty, not just the hit man. What kind of stupidity rules our world…

  56. LeeLee says:

    I have been really troubled by the Evangelical pro-life movement for some time. There was a time that there was a Christian idea that a woman who brought an illegitimate child into the world was doing a harmful, shameful thing. Now, a woman who brings an illegitimate child into the world is a hero through Christian eyes.

    When I went through a volunteer training at a proLife center near where I live, they admitted to me that many of the people they serve (by giving out diapers, etc) where never considering an abortion at all, they’re just single moms looking for a handout.

    I just feel like the proLife movement is devolving into a support wing, or maybe even a cheerleading squad for women who don’t care about the consequences of what they are doing by conceiving children out of wedlock. They are unleashing a cycle of brokenness into society that I’m not sure we’ll be able to break short of the total demise of our society period.

    Obviously we don’t want them to kill their children, and I guess shame is seen as something that might drive them to that. But what about the other consequences of no shame? Is it really always a good thing when an illegitimate child is born into the world? I think there was a time Christians could have answered no to that, but not anymore.

  57. S. Chan says:

    “Donald Trump’s Abortion Logic Is Totally 100% Right”, Time (March 31, 2016)
    http://time.com/4278462/donald-trump-abortion-filipovic/
    (written by a feminist)

  58. jbro1922 says:

    You know why this is an issue? Because every time it’s brought up, the feminist reframe is “what about men? If a woman has sex and chooses to have an abortion, why does she get stigmatized and not the man?” Deflection.

    ““Punishment” sounds so harsh. If elective abortions were made illegal, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to punish the doctor but give the poor woman ‘victim’ free, permanent birth control in the form of tying her tubes. Zero chance of recidivism that way and far cheaper than jail, and the poor girl never has to worry about “being punished with a baby” for having sex ever again.”

    That sound plausible. However, you can see the argument there. Women don’t want anything to be so permanent.

    “Cruz even *looks* live a cuckservative. Just look at his face. One look at him and I knew I cannot vote for that cuck.”

    He has a very punchable face.

    “Churchgoing people might consider if they’ve ever been asked to pray for a woman undergoing a procedure with no name – “Ann has to have a procedure, pray for skill for the doctor and healing for her quick recovery”. In the modern world there’s nothing that some woman isn’t willing to blab about; hystorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, whatever. So a procedure-with-no-name is very likely an abortion.”

    Interesting.

  59. Pingback: Aborted morality. | Reaction Times

  60. Dalrock says:

    @Cassie

    God is good and merciful, however, and doesn’t want for any of us to perish. If the woman is remorseful, repentant, and seeks God’s forgiveness, He is merciful and will grant it. That’s where real “healing” begins. Meaning it’s dangerous to claim that a woman has no responsibility, and it’s counterproductive to do so if you really want her to be healed from her resulting despair and guilt.

    Indeed. Well put.

  61. Sean says:

    This is what I’ve never understood about the position. Victims of whom, exactly?

    The odds of being pregnant from rape are so small as to be statistically zero. Far more likely she got herself into the situation by being on her back very willingly. Who made her a victim and of what, exactly??

  62. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    OK, its only been up for a few minutes and so far, I stand corrected. I must admit that. Here are the two comments I got so far, both from women:

    Interesting.

    The dynamics of this issue are driven by the profound ugliness of the act. Women are far more driven to avoid the judgment of men than most can comprehend, and the uglier the issue the stronger the reaction. When you made this statement as a respected man, it is only natural that a good percentage of women eagerly followed, even though your stance is strongly counter-cultural (not to mention against team woman). The other related response will be silence, which is a less active way of the woman avoiding associating herself with something so profoundly ugly. The third response you will likely see (hopefully from a very small minority) is the “don’t judge meee!” response, which in it’s milder manifestation will take the form of death threats, etc. You will tend to get agreement, silence, and pure unadulterated hatred. But unless the group in question is really far gone 80-90% of the women will fall into the first two camps, and the first camp will dwarf the third one. I should also note that women who have aborted and repented will likely be some of your most vocal members of group one. They understand what is at stake here.

    It is ironically men who will struggle with this more, as the idea of speaking a truth which would upset even a small percentage of unrepentant women is truly terrifying to a large number of men.

  63. Anon says:

    D,

    as the idea of speaking a truth which would upset even a small percentage of unrepentant women is truly terrifying to a large number of men.

    Because for most of our existence, we lived in tribes/villages of 50-100 people, and each man had at most 3 females of his age group to choose from. Meeting the disapproval of the parents of even one of them precluded the man from mating by 33%. This hardwiring does not go away easily.

    Remember that chivalry/pedestalization did work in the past, as it impressed the parents of the girl whose hand was being sought. They were impressed with ‘the nice boy’ and the fact that there were no tingles with the girl was a non-issue, and hence ignored..

  64. Dalrock says:

    @FFd&c

    The common law (Blackstone through the 19th century) view of abortions was, the abortionist was the perpretrator, the woman the victim.

    @Opus

    I believe that it might be time for some calm reasoned legal advice – but unfortunately you will have to listen to me (and I fear I am a little rusty) but you should firstly understand that Abortion is not Murder as it is not the destruction of a life in being. Abortion is the destruction of a foetus and it is the person who carries out the abortion who is primarily criminally responsible. That at least is the law in England.

    There seems to be some disagreement here, as to whether the woman is actually the “victim” or if she is merely not the target of state sanction. The former would surprise me greatly. Focusing legal sanction on the abortionist while not absolving the woman of moral guilt would be an effective social strategy, precisely because women are highly motivated to avoid being judged morally. I noted this in my comment to Scott above, and posted on the topic here, but this is a good opportunity to reiterate the point.

    I quoted Amanda Marcotte at the beginning of the post, and she is instructive in this way. Marcotte laid bare the ugly selfish motivations that truly lie behind the vast majority of abortions, concluding with:

    This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion. Given the choice between living my life how I please and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose me. Here’s another uncomfortable fact for anti-choicers: Just because a woman does want children doesn’t mean she wants them now. Maybe she’s still got some fun-having to do. Or maybe she has a couple already and, already well-educated about the smelly neediness of babies, feels done with having them. Either way, what she wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.

    But even when plainly stating this ugly truth, Marcotte herself felt the weight of the social disapproval this would inevitably invoke (even though she was in theory writing for enlightened feminists who would be duty bound to support her). Marcotte continues:

    So, reading those three paragraphs above? I bet at some point you recoiled a bit, even if you don’t want to have recoiled a bit. Don’t I sound selfish? Hedonistic? Isn’t there something very unfeminine about my bluntness here? Hell, I’m performing against gender norms so hard that even I recoil a little. This is actually what I think, and I feel zero guilt about it, but I know that saying so out loud will cause people to want to hit me with the Bad Woman ruler, and that causes a little dread.

    The great irony is:
    1) Changing the law is a pure fantasy so long as the culture is not on our side. So the idea that we need to fudge the culture issue for the greater good of getting some legal change is simply a false trade off.
    2) We could change the culture if we weren’t terrified of speaking the truth. Pro lifers are in this sense leading abortion culture without knowing it by making it painfully clear that they don’t really see abortion as murder or anything even approaching it.
    3) If we could change the culture, changing the law would not only be far easier, the impact of the culture change alone would be profound on changing women’s acceptance of abortion.

  65. PM says:

    Pro lifers don’t want to punish women for having an abortion because in most instances
    there is no way of monitoring whether or not a woman has become pregnant and differentiating miscarriage from intentional abortion that doesn’t invade privacy. Instead of admitting that privacy trumps murder in their opinion they claim that the woman is a victim.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    LeeLee
    When I went through a volunteer training at a proLife center near where I live, they admitted to me that many of the people they serve (by giving out diapers, etc) where never considering an abortion at all, they’re just single moms looking for a handout.

    No surprise, but thanks for the confirmation. Let’s look at it more abstractly:
    Suppose a woman with a 3 year old toddler walked into an Evangelical church with a big knife and said “Give me what I want or I’ll cut the kid to pieces”. What would happen? She’s holding the child hostage, right? What do we do as a society with hostage takers?

    Same woman 3.5 years earlier walks in, says she’s preggers, needs help because she “can’t decide what to do…”. Isn’t it the same thing? “Give me what I want or I kill the kid” either way, right?

    It’s a rich irony that the worse women behave as a group, the more men are ordered to worship them. Double down on pedestalization.

    “Cuckservative” may not be a strong enough word. It might not convey all the contempt that TradCons increasingly deserve.

  67. pancakeloach says:

    The “But then we’d have to invade the privacy of all women of childbearing age to enforce the ban on abortion!” is the objection of totalitarians. In Western societies, we have this thing called “presumption of innocence,” which would protect women who miscarry. Absent actual evidence of foul play, it would be recorded as nothing more than another case of fatal accident. There are plenty of potentially fatal accidents just waiting to happen in daily life, and we don’t constantly monitor people who own bath tubs or tall ladders just in case someone dies in their house!

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    pancakeloach, one thing I have noticed over the years about abortion: it’s almost entirely an emotional issue. Reason rarely enters into it. This particular “gotcha” question was clearly tuned and timed to hit one candidate, and to further the political machine.

    It’s pretty empty to debate the “what ifs” on this topic, because so many women have an emotional investment in it, and as long as women vote there will be a large bloc demanding it.

    However one views Trump, his campaign has been very clarifying. First he flushed the cuckservatives out of the grass, revealing that many of the big-money conservatives are more concerned with fund raising than actually doing anything. Now he’s inadvertently flushed the pro-lifers out of the grass, revealing them to be pedestalizers and rent seekers who aren’t actually interesting in really doing much about abortion, they just like to rouse emotions and raise funds.

    Wonderfully clarifying. It’s like a real-life version of The Emperor’s New Clothes, except there’s multiple emperors being revealed as butt-nekkid.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Women are far more driven to avoid the judgment of men they are attracted to than most can comprehend, and the uglier the issue the stronger the reaction.

    FIFY

  70. Gunner Q says:

    “By suggesting that women who get an abortion should face punishment, Trump managed to unite advocates on both sides of the issue.”

    What a damning observation. And Trump’s backpedaling gives little hope that’s he the guy to turn the tide.

    Like AR said, Trump’s campaign is bringing out all the cockroaches. Pro-lifers closing ranks with abortionists, nationalists siding with open borders enthusiasts, Republican candidates voicing support for voting Democrat. So this is REAL American politics: A Dark Triad walks into the Gamma harem. Gammas hate him but can’t push him out like they did Ron Paul because women lust for him, so they try to prove the Dark Triad isn’t a Real Man(TM). Nobody means what he says, from national security to monetary policy, because it’s all posturing for the females.

    What percentage of humanity ever outgrows adolescence?

  71. mmaier2112 says:

    Cassie says: April 1, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    The pro life movement should be taking God’s view on the subject: if a woman gets an abortion, she will face His judgement as a murderer, not as a victim. Justice demands this. God is good and merciful, however, and doesn’t want for any of us to perish. If the woman is remorseful, repentant, and seeks God’s forgiveness, He is merciful and will grant it. That’s where real “healing” begins. Meaning it’s dangerous to claim that a woman has no responsibility, and it’s counterproductive to do so if you really want her to be healed from her resulting despair and guilt.

    I have had two women “confess” their abortions to me. One seemed sort sad about it, although I suspect she was attempting to glean sympathy at the time. The other has outright said “I didn’t do anything wrong”, even years after the fact. (“The women eats, wipes her mouth and says ‘I have done nothing wrong”, isn’t that the verse?)

    Neither openly spoke of it or was proud. And I bet neither has told their non-murdered children of their dead sibling’s vivisection.

    Matt Walsh is a dangerous idiot, encouraging women to murder their own children while posing as a virtuous Christian. I won’t post my true thoughts on him here, they’re far less than kind and quite vulgar. I hope Jesus grills his sorry ass about it later.

  72. Mike T says:

    The utter absurdity in the position of men like Walsh is revealed in this principle:

    We are to feel more anger and outrage toward the parties involved in the brutal murder of an able-bodied man who failed (for whatever reason) to defend himself than we are to all of the parties involved in the brutal murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all life short of Jesus Christ.

    Obviously, murdering anyone is a heinous thing, but let’s get real. If abortion is murder, and I believe it is, then it is quite literally the most disgusting form of murder short of the scourging and murder of God on the cross.

  73. Mike T says:

    * Didn’t mean to imply Jesus was defenseless, just utterly innocent.

  74. Swanny River says:

    I haven’t read the comments yet, but I expect they’ll be great like the OP. This is the type of humbling and hard hitting insight that I desire to hear from the pulpit. I was surprised to learn from Cruz that I don’t have an instinctual pro-life heart but then I have to remember that being Christian means wanting to be salt and light yet hating logic and loving emotions and perceptions.

  75. PVW says:

    It seems to me that the real victim mentality is the presumption that women are the sexual victims of men, and I’m sure that has been discussed previously.

  76. Cassie says:

    @ Dalrock

    Indeed. Well put.

    Thank you.🙂

  77. Dalrock, you put forth some very bold statents, both in the original post:

    “If they really believed abortion was murder, a woman who put a hit out on her unborn child would merit punishment along with the rest of the murder-for-hire conspiracy.”

    and again in the comments:

    “The great irony is:
    1) Changing the law is a pure fantasy so long as the culture is not on our side. So the idea that we need to fudge the culture issue for the greater good of getting some legal change is simply a false trade off.
    2) We could change the culture if we weren’t terrified of speaking the truth. Pro lifers are in this sense leading abortion culture without knowing it by making it painfully clear that they don’t really see abortion as murder or anything even approaching it.
    3) If we could change the culture, changing the law would not only be far easier, the impact of the culture change alone would be profound on changing women’s acceptance of abortion.”

    I agree with the assessment of the problem, but it falls far short of what I consider an even worse problem: continuing to draw the line at the so-called exceptions. The contract for murder analogy still holds up for a child conceived by rape or incest.

    And the remaining exception is no exception at all. If the life of the mother is truly in grave danger from something like an ectopic pregnancy, what we then have is a situation in which, at most, only one can survive, the mother in this example. In other words, you would be obligated to save both if you could, but that is not possible. This is *nothing* like rape and incest. We continue to give the rape and incest exceptions respectability by lumping them together with something that is not abortion but instead a life-saving rescue operation.

    Until we muster the courage to call this out, we haven’t got a chance of being truly pro-life–or being taken much more seriously than the fake pro-lifers who view the woman as victim.

    We need to make stark distinctions from the pseudo pro-lifers, yes, and this distinction goes even farther than what everyone here is calling out.

  78. Philalethes says:

    I’ve never been impressed by the “pro-life” crowd. By agreeing to the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” battle of euphemisms, rather than speaking the truth, from the beginning they ceded control of the argument to the pro-abortionists.

    And yes, it’s all about placing the feelings of women first, before beginning to address the substantive issue. Which means that the real issue will never be addressed – because to mention it might hurt women’s feelings.

    I felt the same way about the “men’s rights movement” that was starting up 15-20 years ago, whose language capitulated ab initio to the feminist premise that men and women possess different “rights”. Which is absolutely counter to what was meant by the men (and they were men) who created the concept of “rights”.

    Both these groups have agreed to start out with a handicap on the home field of their opposition; they can never catch up. Kind of like the American “conservative” community, who are perpetually asking their opponents, “Is it okay if we say this?” “Cuckservatives”, indeed.

    Trump certainly could have handled this situation better, had he (and his advisers) had a chance to think about it beforehand, and it may have damaged him. But still, even if he’s never President, once again, just by being his own honest, impulsive, plain-spoken self, he’s turned over another rock and exposed the filth underneath.

    What will come of all this I don’t know, but it’s certainly a fascinating movie. Watching videos of Trump people, they at least feel a possibility of a “morning in America”. They look happy – as Americans have not for years. If they’re disappointed – which at this point can only be via some dirty tricks – it’s likely to get very interesting. The American political establishment has created a tiger – which they can neither ride nor get off of.

  79. Philalethes says:

    P.S.: It is also, btw, quite ironic to see “conservatives” who claim to be “pro-life” enthusiastically supporting mass slaughter by the US in various foreign lands. Not exactly a consistent position.

  80. Pingback: April 1 Is Just Another Day Now | nightskyradio

  81. feeriker says:

    While it is true that women are more easily deceived, this doesn’t absolve women of responsibility for their sins.

    Brother, thou shouldst rejoice that there is no Churchian Inquisition, for thou hast uttered the ultimate heresy. Repent and be forgiven thy blasphemous transgressions against the Blessed Vaginas!

  82. Boxer says:

    Trump certainly could have handled this situation better, had he (and his advisers) had a chance to think about it beforehand, and it may have damaged him. But still, even if he’s never President, once again, just by being his own honest, impulsive, plain-spoken self, he’s turned over another rock and exposed the filth underneath.

    This is what I like about him. He’s not being handled by some PR firm and when I listen to him, what I hear is not a lot of high-gloss teleprompted pap that doesn’t really mean anything.

    It’s true he’s not as “conservative” as Ted Cruz. He’ll probably end up being a liberal republican of the Rockefeller persuasion (those were the original “close the borders” and “tariff” guys). We’ll probably get universal healthcare that actually works, and a reduction in immigration, and an end to a lot of the disastrous neocon foreign wars that have crippled our economy. Mostly, though, we’ll have a chance to have an authentic human being as our president. After so many years with cucks like Bush and Obama, it’ll be a welcome relief.

  83. Philalethes says:

    @ Hank Flanders:

    He has no congressional, gubernatorial, or any kind of government record for us to look at to see what kind of leader he’d make, and yet, people want to make him the leader of this country.

    You don’t get it. This is exactly why “people want to make him the leader of this country”. Because anybody who isn’t asleep has by now realized that everybody who does have “any kind of government record” is part of the problem. It’s a certainty what they will do: continue to lie, lie, lie, and drive the country further into the ground – soon past the point of no return. Yes, it’s true that some people “trust” Trump; but for many, he’s simply a gamble on the possibility of something different – because he’s not a career politician, but a successful businessman who’s actually done real work in his life – opposed to the certainty of more of the same. No, it’s not an ideal situation, but it’s the situation we’ve got, and all we have to work with.

  84. Pingback: Why the word “coward” never works on women. | Morally Contextualized Romance

  85. Anon says:

    It’s true he’s not as “conservative” as Ted Cruz. He’ll probably end up being a liberal republican of the Rockefeller persuasion (those were the original “close the borders” and “tariff” guys).

    But since cuckservatives are indistinguishable from lefto-manginas on the issue of female primacy, who is really a ‘conservative’ anymore? Certainly no prominent GOP establishment candidate.

    He has no congressional, gubernatorial, or any kind of government record for us to look at to see what kind of leader he’d make

    He cannot possibly be worse than Obama and Hillary, and the cuckservatives are pretty much just Democrats with ‘Churchian characteristics’.

    I was neutral on Trump, but this abortion incident and the Michelle Fields farce made me think that Trump is certainly what this country needs.

    If nothing else, Trump stands for :

    1) The Business of America is Business
    2) Women should be good-looking, and marrying a much younger, hot woman is a worthy goal (something bitter cuckservatives hate, as evidenced by their blind whiteknighting for the beclowned Michelle Fields).
    3) The only candidate who is not a complete ‘feminist’. That alone is reason enough to favor him over Cruz.
    4) Mastering the media is everything (something else the cuckservatives could scarcely have done worse in).

  86. Hmm says:

    Well, I started this whole thing off with a comment that took me a minute or so to draft over lunch, and which brought a fair amount of blowback. Having come back with more time and having read the meta so far, I have a few things to say:

    1. There are clearly women that are coerced in some way into having an abortion. There are clearly women who are deceived into it. Degree of culpability ranges from not very much to completely culpable. But in any particular case (regardless of percentages), we cannot determine degree of culpability and intention. We cannot read minds. We should therefore err on the side of humility. So I place the woman’s role in abortion, neither as victim nor criminal, but as sinner, and heinous one at that – under God’s death penalty but not under penalty of law. This does not let the woman off the hook – she must seek forgiveness for what she has done.

    2. The abortionists have no such excuse as coercion or deception. They know what they are doing. They are sinners and murderers, and murder is a criminal offense.

    3. On the distinction between sin and crime: All crime is (or should be) sinful; not every Biblical sin brings earthly punishment. The Old Testament law had penalties laid out for most violations of the Ten Commandments: murder, perjury, adultery, theft, idolatry, blasphemy. But there was no penalty for covetousness, since that was in itself invisible to any except God (although it would often work itself out in some sin which was also a crime).

    BTW, both a totalitarian society (toward which we are slouching) and a legalistic church are very good at making crimes out of things that are no sin. It’s how they get power.

  87. bluepillprofessor says:

    Hmmm an April fools gag? Coerced into having an abortion means the boyfriend suggested it so prosecute him instead. Airtight?

  88. They Call Me Tom says:

    If abortion isn’t a crime, is rape? Both involve one will acting without regard to another.

  89. Hank Flanders says:

    Philalethes

    You don’t get it. This is exactly why “people want to make him the leader of this country”. Because anybody who isn’t asleep has by now realized that everybody who does have “any kind of government record” is part of the problem.

    No, I get it. I just reject

  90. Hank Flanders says:

    *I just reject the reasoning.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    1. There are clearly women that are coerced in some way into having an abortion. There are clearly women who are deceived into it. Degree of culpability ranges from not very much to completely culpable. But in any particular case (regardless of percentages), we cannot determine degree of culpability and intention. We cannot read minds. We should therefore err on the side of humility.

    OK, so you are willing to defend women’s rights to abort unborn children, because they are just li’l women who don’t really know what they are doing and so forth. Got it. Let’s move on.

    Quesiton: is there anything that you would hold a woman responsible for? Any action at all? Or are you just another “Women are Wonderful” White Knight?

    So I place the woman’s role in abortion, neither as victim nor criminal, but as sinner, and heinous one at that – under God’s death penalty but not under penalty of law. This does not let the woman off the hook – she must seek forgiveness for what she has done.

    In the modern church, where Jesus is the BFF of all women, because they are closer to God, they are totally off the hook. Too bad you can’t see this. Maybe it’s the glare from that aluminum foil armor?

  92. The Tingler says:

    As a staunch pro-lifer, I volunteer to personally abort every fetus Amanda Marcotte ever conceives.

  93. Boxer says:

    Dear Hmm:

    There are clearly women that are coerced in some way into having an abortion. There are clearly women who are deceived into it. Degree of culpability ranges from not very much to completely culpable. But in any particular case (regardless of percentages), we cannot determine degree of culpability and intention. We cannot read minds. We should therefore err on the side of humility.

    There are clearly heroin junkies who are coerced (by poverty, aimlessness, or just the pangs of addiction) to buy heroin. We generally punish the dealers of heroin more harshly than the users, but we do punish the users. If we didn’t, it would suggest that we wouldn’t care about them.

    People who get abortions aren’t always horrible people. Sometimes they’re young and stupid. Most often they’re irresponsible idiots. We should still deter people from doing it. In deterring them, we encourage them to be responsible (like, say, using birth control before having sex with strangers — that’s not so horrible an idea, is it?)

    Like the heroin junkie, who knows he’ll be called to account for his escapist idiocy, the client of the abortion clinic should also be punished — even if it’s only being named and shamed. It’s the way we, as a society, declare that we care about potential people as well as actual ones.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  94. I have never been all that angry when doctors who murder unborn children are murdered in their clinics. I wouldn’t kill them myself, but (to be honest) I’ve never been upset about it. I guess I am just some monster.

  95. Feminist Hater says:

    They are sinners and murderers

    So are the women who do this. Stop trying to defend them by placing the blame elsewhere.

  96. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    An article reports that while atheism is on the rise, so is belief in an afterlife. I found this excerpt intriguing:

    Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at the university, said: “It was interesting that fewer people participated in religion but more believed in an afterlife. It might be part of a growing entitlement mentality, thinking you can get something for nothing.”

    This might explain why so many “Christian” women feel that they can enjoy consequence-free abortions.

    Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/657412/What-is-it-like-to-be-dead-Patient-who-died-says-there-is-NOTHING-after-death

  97. Ungoliant's Fodder says:

    Upon hearing this logic from both a candidate for president of the US, and from the pretended protectors of unborn children, I get a cold, sickly feeling that I imagine a fly must have when it has already been poisoned, and the spider now shows that she is ready to desanguinate it, with all the mad purpose of hunger.

  98. Spike says:

    It is estimated that there are 57-58 million abortions in the US alone since Roe vs Wade, 1973.
    World-wide, the figure is staggering:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/1.72-billion-abortions-worldwide-in-the-last-40-years

    1.72 billion. That’s more than all of the dictators combined, all of the smallpox and plagues of humanity.

    Haven’t women loudly proclaimed “My Body, My Choice” in demonstrations? This means they own that 1.72 billion deaths. This would make them the greatest mass murderers (or more accurately mass-murderesses) in history.

    How can this not be clear to Cruz, to the milquetoast apologists for “pro-choice” advocates, or to the Church? How can it not be clear, especially after the Planned Parenthood stings that happened inside a year ago?
    Or, is it simply that the enormity of this crime is so great that they have to numb it out somehow?
    Ah Yes: If a woman does a horrible thing, a man has to be responsible for it somehow….

  99. JDG says:

    Once again well done Dalrock.

  100. greyghost says:

    Abortion is illegal. A woman that gets an abortion should be punished. Perfectly true and logical. I would say the same thing. It’s honest, treats women as adults with agency. Fits in with the idea of equality.

  101. Bee says:

    The Tingler,

    Aaron Russo on feminism as a tool for taxation and govt. control:

  102. Linx says:

    @Hmm
    Def – Murder. The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

    “So I place the woman’s role in abortion, neither as victim nor criminal, but as sinner, and heinous one at that – under God’s death penalty but not under penalty of law.”

    So what is this lawful justification or excuse that absolves her from the latter?

  103. Miserman says:

    The pro-life narrative of punishing only the doctors only makes sense if it assumed that every woman having an abortion had sex agaist her will. However, if that is the case, then there are millions of men who have committed rape and escaped justice. And thus is the narrative that partially drives abortion rights.

  104. I tried to think of a person in a cohort that is considered a victim group that is held responsible for an action functionally comparable to a woman seeking a doctor that would perform abortions even though illegal. My example was opiate pain med addicts who doctor shop….use multiple overlapping doctors for prescriptions for narcotics. Doc shoppers are punished. Doc who even inadvertently participate are also subject to punishment.

    Not that there need even be an argument from analogy. I’m left crestfallen by this.

    There is peculiar aspect to this that for church leaders. It is what also informs the lack of plain teaching on divorce. I am not comparing abortion and divorce, the point is the reason for the dearth of plain speaking. Its less about not wanting to tell unaffected women to NOT abort, or divorce, and more about the female tendency to eschew guilt by association, even if the association is anonymous…no one knows she had an abortion, but if pastor says something about abortion she feeeeeels bad and that pisses her off.

    Its a thought experiment to imagine how the narrative would evolve in a country where we’d never had an abortion….ever…..or for a few generations minimum, hence no women to be directly insulted by new efforts to make it criminal.

  105. Molly says:

    I didn’t know what the official “pro-life” stance was concerning the mothers. How unbelievably wrong. 😦

  106. Boxer says:

    Dear Bee:

    Not a single site that posts the video asks for facts, nor do they supply them. Why request facts when you have a video?

    http://whytheconspiracytheoriesarebullshit.blogspot.com/2009/04/debunking-bullshit-aaron-russo-and.html

    Regards,

    Boxer

  107. Boxer says:

    Red Pill Latecomer:

    This might explain why so many “Christian” women feel that they can enjoy consequence-free abortions.

    The fact that there’s no afterlife doesn’t make aborting one’s baby ethical. It’s a shitty, selfish thing to do in this world, all on its own.

    Atheists should start thinking clearly on this topic. Do you really want to associate with people that are this shortsighted and irresponsible? These women think that killing their children, and vacuuming their bodies into the garbage disposal is normal. If they don’t give a shit about their own kids, don’t be surprised when they shaft you.

    Boxer

  108. Moses says:

    The “Women who murder their babies are victims” trope is perfectly reasonable when you understand that women are children.

    Everybody know that women are unable to make decisions for themselves or be held accountable for those decisions. Hell, they can’t be held accountable for deciding to have sex after drinking alcohol either.

    Women are children. It was idiocy of the highest order to give women the vote.

  109. Hmm says:

    @AR: “Quesiton: is there anything that you would hold a woman responsible for? Any action at all? Or are you just another “Women are Wonderful” White Knight?”

    Hardly that, I think the secular law is a blunt instrument, suitable for cases where crime and intent are clear; less suitable where there is a range of degrees of responsibility. Consider the problems that are currently caused in dealing with sexting teens by the inflexible child porn laws. The law is not equipped to handle nuance in most cases.

    In saying that I would not criminalize the woman, I am not saying she should not be held responsible. I would hope any church she belonged to would discipline and excommunicate her if she was unrepentant. I would hope her friends would call her to account. She should be made to feel the weight of her sin.

    But I would certainly treat as a criminal anyone who coerced her.

    Having said all that, I am aware of the disconnect involved between considerations of abortion vs. infanticide. Most pro-life people (most church people) pay lip service to them being equally heinous, but do not carry that through into their thinking about the parties involved. A woman hiring someone to kill her two year old child would be considered as culpable as the man who carried out the deed.

    And so I ask myself, why should there be reduced culpability in the woman who aborts – at least absent coercion? Of course in many cases she is believing a lie (“just a piece of tissue”) – that is she is deceived or self-deceived. Or she is believing the lie that because it is legal it is OK. And at this point, what the child is or will be is invisible.

    But after consideration, I find that distinction hard to maintain. I want the woman who kills her two year old to go to jail, and don’t think the same way about the one who aborted her ten weeks along child. Practical considerations? Unwillingness to try to read minds? Feelz? Rationalizations? Hmm.

    BTW, thanks to those who have interacted with me on this and not just called me an idiot.

  110. Hmm says:

    I agree with Doug Wilson on Trump’s initial comment. It’s exactly the type of thing that someone who felt he needed to adopt a pro-life stance to succeed, but had never looked into the stance itself, might think pro-lifers believed. After all, it’s the liberal stereotype he’s probably heard in his circles.

  111. Giraffe says:

    Doug Wilson on Trump’s initial comment. It’s exactly the type of thing that someone who felt he needed to adopt a pro-life stance to succeed, but had never looked into the stance itself, might think pro-lifers believed.

    Many pro-life people do have that stance. I was actually surprised by this incident that such a view is even controversial.

    I can go either way. Either, women have moral agency and can be trusted to make decisions that affect their lives and the lives of others. If this is the case, then they should be punished for having an abortion.

    The other case is that women are legally children and must have someone to make these decisions for them.

    It ought to be one or the the other. Right now, situation is that women are free to make decisions up to and including killing their unborn children and people like you think they should not be punished for that.

    That actually is a pretty elegant solution to the problem. If women don’t want to be held responsible for the results of a decision, then that decision should be made by someone else.

    No accountability, no rights.

  112. Boxer says:

    Everybody know that women are unable to make decisions for themselves or be held accountable for those decisions. Hell, they can’t be held accountable for deciding to have sex after drinking alcohol either.

    I think most pro-choice men and manginas (as they exist here) are simply solipsists. I had exactly this view until a relatively short time ago, by the way.

    It’s easy to think that the customers of the abortion clinic are all young girls who have been raped, or women in abusive relationships. After all, I am careful with my junk, and it takes very little effort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, so it was easy for me to extrapolate this to the rest of the population.

    It’s something of a rude awakening to realize that so many people are so fundamentally damaged and substandard as to use abortion as a method of birth control, but that is, in fact, the case. These are people who deserve all the humiliation any society can offer them, and to do so is in the long-term interests of society anyway. A healthier social system would sentence irresponsible women to 30 days in jail and their names in the paper when they did this, that normal people would know who not to associate with.

    Boxer

  113. Boxer says:

    Dear Moses:

    Everybody know that women are unable to make decisions for themselves or be held accountable for those decisions. Hell, they can’t be held accountable for deciding to have sex after drinking alcohol either.

    You’re white-knighting for women when you write this crap. You may not realize it, but you are.

    Women are children. It was idiocy of the highest order to give women the vote.

    Women who seek abortions are nothing like children. Ask any little boy or girl whether it is acceptable to kill a baby.

    Woman who seeks an abortion is not behaving in a childlike way. She is behaving like a remorseless psychopath, who wants someone else to suffer for her own irresponsible idiocy.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  114. Cassie says:

    @ Boxer

    A healthier social system would sentence irresponsible women to 30 days in jail and their names in the paper when they did this, that normal people would know who not to associate with.

    We’re talking about premeditated murder here. 30 days in jail for 1rst degree murder is a slap on the wrist. Make it a life sentence and we’ll have something useful.

  115. Bee says:

    @Boxer,

    I agree Russo does not cite stats or references to back up his assertions. I posted it in case The Tingler had not seen it before, it is an interesting starting point, but definitely not proof.

    I don’t buy everything at that Debunker site either.

  116. They Call Me Tom says:

    The thing that gets missed in contemporary culture, is that punishment can be compassionate. That’s the first philosophical/moral hill that you have to roll up and over to address drug addiction and abortion alike. Until the hamster can wrap itself around that concept, it’s never going to be understood by the narcissistic sociopaths that really have convinced themselves that there is no difference between clipping a toenail and murdering a living being simply because the opportunity is available.

    There is much talk of men manning up, but opting for abortion over adoption or being a responsible parent is a sign of someone needing to woman up.

  117. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    What you are seeing in comments is the over lap of “having your cake and eating it too” It is the madness of anything female without just saying no.

    Everybody know that women are unable to make decisions for themselves or be held accountable for those decisions. Hell, they can’t be held accountable for deciding to have sex after drinking alcohol either.

    This comment here is classic. This is adult privilege without responsibility. The comment comes from observation of reality in practice. In that context it is correct in the context of a particular woman it is straight up white knighting. It is very destructive to a civilization as can be seen. Every where women are this game is played out. We see it as the feminine imperative subroutine on the logical thought process. The thing is logic must take a back seat for this to even be possible. When this becomes apart of your culture and law you are doomed. Biblical principles cannot be taught or spoken about with this subroutine. We call them churchians. Men following this mind set are weak indeed. An interesting article on ROK shows a few examples of this in the Bible.
    http://www.returnofkings.com/84198/3-men-of-the-bible-who-were-undone-by-weakness

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    Over at Scott’s blog Morally Contextualized Romance his wife has a women-only posting related to this topic and linking to this posting. She writes:

    t would have been better had I gone directly from the care of my grandfather to the care of my husband. Scott reminds me very much of him and my grandpas voice is still the one I hear on my shoulder when I am sinning. I hate disappointing either of them.

    Dalrock has written that women care deeply about men’s opinion / judgement, and I corrected that to “men they are attracted to”, but that probably isn’t correct either.
    Perhaps a better phrase would be: women care deeply about the opinion of men they respect.

    Now, let’s turn to the modern world, where feminism has taught women to hold men in contempt for about two generations. To have contempt for all men as “oppressors” and to hold men in family in contempt for often the same reason – fathers are “oppressors” of daughters, husbands are “oppressors” of wives, and so forth. The long term effects of this need not be discussed, we’re there.

    We swim in the sewer of feminism, all of us. Men are taught from an early age that they are despicable, contemptible, animalistic; women are taught from an early age that men are oppressive, dangerous, and to be held in contempt. Little wonder that many women, perhaps most, cannot be restrained except when it might cost money or social standing within her circle of female friends.

    This is a long winded way of saying NAWALT to Dalrock. Not all women crave men’s approval. Some have been carefully taught to reject it early, reject it often, reject it in private, reject it in public – I point to Slutwalks as Exhibit A, and all the reactions of women to any possibilty of limiting abortion as Exhibit B.

  119. That’s the first philosophical/moral hill that you have to roll up and over to address drug addiction and abortion alike.

    Yes I agree. That is why I chose the doctor shopping example as my analog. There is, in many minds, a yin yang aspect to compassion and accountability for certain moral and/or legal infractions.

  120. greyghost says:

    Anonymous Reader
    I like the “men they respect” Much better and accurate way to introduce red pill truth to Christians and remove stigma and give positive encouragement to women adjusting their behavior. The term of “attracted to” gives the impression of a woman trying to behave civilly as a slut looking for dick. With out the sexual context maybe that churchian preacher will be more likely to take the red pill and start actually noticing how the scripture itself is red pill.
    As commented here earlier Donald Trump for all his human failings spoke a truth no preacher or man in general it seems has the ability to speak out loud. That has to change in our churches. Otherwise start prepping and learn to pull ambushes and weapons manufacturing.

  121. Peter says:

    @Hmm the woman who aborts is guilty of a sin; the one who brings about that abortion is guilty of a crime

    Wrong. The woman who aborts is complicit in the crime of murder. She makes the decision to murder the baby, sets the appointment, goes to the abortuary for the explicit purpose of murdering her baby, then spreads her legs and explicitly allows the doctor to murder the innocent baby.

    She is guilty of murder and being an accessory to murder at every step.

  122. Hmm says:

    One of the early drivers for men being silent about abortion wasn’t feminism so much as men’s own self-interest. For those who back in the ’70s played the field (or dreamed of it), legalized abortion was a “get out of jail free” card at a time when getting her pregnant would lead to a quick trip to the altar. And for fathers, it was a way for their promiscuous daughters to keep from “ruining their lives”. Men were largely complicit at first. I know as a normal high-school boy, I was.

    I remember in the nineties one pastor I knew said something like “I am totally against abortion except in two cases – my son and my daughter. If either of them got involved in a teenage pregnancy, I am not sure whether I’d oppose it or not.” That he faced no discipline for that comment is one reason I left that denomination.

    And my father saw abortion as the cure for the population boom among blacks, against whom he was strongly biased. He held on to that until he died.

    It was when the courts began holding that the man had no say in whether or not a woman – even a wife – could abort their child that men outside a narrow circle really began to take notice. By that time, male silence had cost us our voice. And of course, once it was seen as purely a “woman’s issue”, principled arguments were out the window.

  123. none says:

    What’s not to understand here? Women don’t have agency. Of course you can’t punish them for having abortions, in the same way they get probation or suspended sentences for having sex with boys. If a woman does something wrong it’s the fault of a man somewhere.

  124. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm, is there any action a woman can take that you would hold her responsible for?
    Anything at all? I asked before and you perhaps forgot to answer. Care to try this time?

  125. Gunner Q says:

    Off-topic, is there a way to post a picture in a comment without going through Internet hosts like flickr? I have a meme to post but have never done pictures before.

    Boxer @ April 1, 2016 at 8:27 pm:
    “We’ll probably get universal healthcare that actually works…”

    There’s no such thing. You might as well give everybody a Constitutional right to a Ferrari.

    Philalethes @ April 1, 2016 at 8:33 pm:
    “This is exactly why “people want to make him the leader of this country”. Because anybody who isn’t asleep has by now realized that everybody who does have “any kind of government record” is part of the problem.”

    If this was true then the Constitution Party would be ascendant. Not only are we not part of the Establishment (which Trump certainly IS, being a celebrity Republican), but unlike him we have the courage to be specific as well. Our platform equates abortion with infanticide, for example, and instead of calling for another round of meaningless reform we want to shut down Social Security immediately and permanently and prosecute its operators for running a Ponzi scheme.

  126. Boxer says:

    There’s no such thing. You might as well give everybody a Constitutional right to a Ferrari.

    You’re an idiot

  127. Novaseeker says:

    This is a long winded way of saying NAWALT to Dalrock. Not all women crave men’s approval. Some have been carefully taught to reject it early, reject it often, reject it in private, reject it in public – I point to Slutwalks as Exhibit A, and all the reactions of women to any possibilty of limiting abortion as Exhibit B.

    In a way, yes, but really I see these things as indications that the women actually do care what men think, and they want to change what men think. Same with the campaign against “beauty standards” and so on, which uses the rhetoric that women shouldn’t care about the male gaze and so on, when really what they want is for men to be gazing at different women. I think women do care about what certain men think of them — I’d say they care about what specific men whom they respect think of them individually, but they also care about what men as a sex think of women as a sex more generally, too. They *say* otherwise, of course, being strong, independent and all that, but really all of the endless bitching and moaning about any number of things means they very much do care about what men think, and are concerned about men thinking things about themselves specifically, or women generally, which could be harmful, restrictive or otherwise negatively impact themselves personally or women as a sex.

  128. @anon: “Cruz even *looks* live a cuckservative. Just look at his face. One look at him and I knew I cannot vote for that cuck.”

    Look at how he handled a veiled criticism of his wife. Trump posted a much criticized tweet of Cruz’s wife and Melonia on a split screen showing that Melonia is super hot while Trump wife (what is her name again) is average looking.

    Cruz’s instinctive response? White Knight to the Nth degree. Epic fail. Seriously, Trump didn’t even criticize the woman. He just said something inane like “A picture is worth 1,000 words.”

    If Cruz were not a bluepill cuck mangina, he would have agreed and amplified and everybody would have laughed.

    “I am just glad that when my wife is first lady there will still be a little bit of herself to reveal for the public.” LOL, would have been hillarious and the Re-pew-bicks would have jumped in the polls.

  129. Dave says:

    Our platform equates abortion with infanticide, for example, and instead of calling for another round of meaningless reform we want to shut down Social Security immediately and permanently and prosecute its operators for running a Ponzi scheme.

    Sometimes, to effect change you must pretend not to be interested in change. Telling people that you will ban abortion and dissolve Social Security will ensure you never gain the power to do so. Even the Antichrist must come in peacefully before unleashing his devilish reforms on his unsuspecting victims.

  130. >If the woman is remorseful, repentant, and seeks God’s forgiveness, He is merciful and will grant it.

    Does she get a pass on the 2nd or 3rd of 4th abortion? Only if she is really remorseful and repentant though and, if RCC confesses and chants a few Hail Mary’s.

  131. Boxer says:

    Blue Pill Professor sez:

    Does she get a pass on the 2nd or 3rd of 4th abortion? Only if she is really remorseful and repentant though and, if RCC confesses and chants a few Hail Mary’s.

    The New Testament makes it clear that she will be forgiven if she’s sincere; but, that’s irrelevant. Jesus can and will forgive you if you do something awful, but that doesn’t mean that any smart young bro should marry her — which is the sort of conflation that’s going on at Catholic Answers.

    Young men and women should marry the very best partners they can get. Playas and ho’s who have abortions and pregnancies in their past are just simply not fit to marry. That might seem uncharitable, but it’s a rough world out there, and it’s better to be safe than end up in the divorce courts later.

    Boxer

  132. Striver says:

    I don’t think women should be in jail for abortion for a couple of reasons. I think that pre-viability abortion, while very bad and immoral 99% of the time, falls short of murder.

    The only Bible verse that comes close to talking about any pre-term issue, Exodus 21:22, is too ambiguous to be of much use to me personally. I’m sure there are many here who can quote many verses and how they interpret them to say with dead certainty that pre-viability abortion is murder. Please don’t bother.

    So it’s wrong, done for bad reasons. But there’s no sentiment to put the women in jail. That isn’t sustainable. So Trump isn’t “speaking the truth” to me. What he said, and quickly backtracked, will never happen anyway. Often the family members of the woman are supportive of her or at least neutral, the father of the fetus may be too. It’s just not going to be politically popular to jail tens of thousands of women over this issue. Fetuses don’t vote, I guess.

    Now I’d be fine with heavy restrictions on abortion. Put curb high barriers up. Only on approval of a doctor, and rape and incest. There are still going to be people who go elsewhere, find a friendly doctor, whatever. I just want barriers up, not a lockdown.

  133. kronbergweb says:

    The woman who has an abortion has made a human sacrifice to Moloch.
    The very fact that even the pro-lifers refuse to acknowledge that abortion is murder means they are part of the pro-abortion movement. This union of the sides now places the pro-lifers under God’s wrath.

  134. none says:

    Cruz’s instinctive response? White Knight to the Nth degree. Epic fail. Seriously, Trump didn’t even criticize the woman. He just said something inane like “A picture is worth 1,000 words.”

    I think a man can be forgiven for leaping to the defense of his wife. In fact, I’d think less of him if he didn’t. “White knighting” is a term that’s normally associated with men coming to the defense of unrelated women.

  135. Cassie says:

    @ bluepillprofessor

    Does she get a pass on the 2nd or 3rd of 4th abortion? Only if she is really remorseful and repentant though and, if RCC confesses and chants a few Hail Mary’s.

    As far as God is concerned, none of us get a “pass” on sin, including abortion. It’s important to consider that receiving God’s forgiveness and thereby avoiding Hell (eternal punishment) is one thing; but getting a free pass on having to pay temporal punishment is completely another. Saying a few Hail Mary’s, while certainly good and helpful, isn’t enough to cut it. One has to do some serious penance (especially for the more heinous sins like abortion), whether in this earthly life or after (in purgatory**), in order to be purified and cleaned of all the stains of our sins, before we will be able to be with God in Heaven. Only the pure and holy may enter there.

    Oh, and the Roman Catholic Church takes abortion seriously enough to get you an automatic excommunication if you take any part whatsoever in getting, performing, encouraging, or knowingly helping someone to get an abortion. And you have to get a Bishop’s permission to rejoin the Church if it’s a “2nd, 3rd or 4th” abortion. Here’s an article I found that mentions related Canon laws by number, for reference.

    http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-Automatic-Excommunication-for-Those-Who-Procure-Abortion,6743

    ** I realize that if you’re not Catholic or Orthodox that you will likely scoff at the idea of purgatory, but if you look back at early Church history, the early saints and even the Jews before then believed in a place of purification after death.

  136. Sean says:

    ** I realize that if you’re not Catholic or Orthodox that you will likely scoff at the idea of purgatory, but if you look back at early Church history, the early saints and even the Jews before then believed in a place of purification after death.

    In the words of Vox Day, cite patristic sources or retract. The early Church Fathers certainly did not believe in any such thing. It wouldn’t be needed since one is a new creation already.

  137. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Striver You are a morally sick puppy.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and the Roman Catholic Church takes abortion seriously enough to get you an automatic excommunication if you take any part whatsoever in getting, performing, encouraging, or knowingly helping someone to get an abortion

    Really? I’m sure this is official dogma, and that you wish it to be actually practiced.

    But last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi and every single solitary member of the Kennedy family still gets communion at Mass, just for a start. Need I go into the details?

  139. Linx says:

    @Hmm.
    Okay let us try it one more time.
    Definition – Murder. The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

    “So I place the woman’s role in abortion, neither as victim nor criminal, but as sinner, and heinous one at that – under God’s death penalty but not under penalty of law.”

    So what is this lawful justification or excuse that absolves her from the latter?

  140. feeriker says:

    But last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi and every single solitary member of the Kennedy family still gets communion at Mass, just for a start.

    In all fairness, the RCC isn’t the only denomination guilty of whoring itself out to the rich, powerful, and famous. The National Cathedral in Rome-on-the-Potomac, run by the Episcopalians, eagerly plays Sunday morning host to all sorts of overtly and stridently Godless, unrepenant vermin (including the simian-eared Muslim who currently occupies the White House), allowing them to mock the sacraments by taking communion and other forms of blasphemy. Other mainstream Protestant denominations are no better.

  141. Mark Hanson says:

    @Anonymous Reader:

    See my post yesterday from 9:35 AM. Maybe you missed it because I used your initials.

  142. Hmm says:

    And google+ blows my cover. Sigh.

  143. Anonymous Reader says:

    See my post yesterday from 9:35 AM. Maybe you missed it because I used your initials.

    I saw it. You did not answer the question that I asked. That is why I asked the question again.
    So, is there any action that you would hold a woman accountable for? If so, what?

  144. @Striver, you’re to the left of Hillary Clinton, who just about an hour ago on Meet the Press referred to the fetus as “unborn person”.

    Wow.

  145. Boxer says:

    And google+ blows my cover. Sigh.

    If you’re concerned, change the display name in google settings.

  146. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ April 2, 2016 at 5:56 pm:
    “There’s no such thing. You might as well give everybody a Constitutional right to a Ferrari.

    You’re an idiot”

    Think it through. Health care, like Ferraris, must be manufactured. What’s the word for an economy in which everybody is entitled to a man’s labor?

    Dave @ April 2, 2016 at 7:20 pm:
    “Even the Antichrist must come in peacefully before unleashing his devilish reforms on his unsuspecting victims.”

    Exactly. Deception, lies and infiltration are the devil’s domain, not Christ’s. A Christian who employs such methods is by definition not a Christian. Waitaminute, are Christians liking Trump BECAUSE he retracted his original, moral statement in order to be more electable? That’s sickening.

  147. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    You’re wrong on all counts.

    Think it through. Health care, like Ferraris, must be manufactured. What’s the word for an economy in which everybody is entitled to a man’s labor?

    Healthcare is a service, and most societies regulate it like any other utility. Your claim that it would be impossible to deliver healthcare to every American is ridiculous, given the fact that somehow you have running water piped into your American house.

    Note that up until the 1980s, most Americans had reasonable access to healthcare. We’ll have it again with Trump. It’d actually be very simple to do, once the waste/fraud/abuse was cut out of the pipeline.

    Boxer

  148. Pingback: Scholarly recognition of the empathogasm | Empathologism

  149. Striver says:

    Boxer – Trump would also like to interest you in some oceanfront property in Omaha.

  150. Boxer says:

    Dear Striver:

    Boxer – Trump would also like to interest you in some oceanfront property in Omaha.

    Brother Boxer spent the first two decades of his life in British Columbia. Do you gibbering kooks really think that workable healthcare is impossible for America, when other, lesser countries, provide such solutions without a problem?

    Most of Europe’s social services were given to them by Americans via the Marshall Plan – lol. Americans can and will have normal healthcare options fairly soon. That won’t be a problem.

    Boxer

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is a long winded way of saying NAWALT to Dalrock. Not all women crave men’s approval. Some have been carefully taught to reject it early, reject it often, reject it in private, reject it in public – I point to Slutwalks as Exhibit A, and all the reactions of women to any possibilty of limiting abortion as Exhibit B.

    Novaseeker
    In a way, yes, but really I see these things as indications that the women actually do care what men think, and they want to change what men think.

    Or you could be grappling once again with the “ought”, i.e. what you think women “ought” to care about?

    Same with the campaign against “beauty standards” and so on, which uses the rhetoric that women shouldn’t care about the male gaze and so on, when really what they want is for men to be gazing at different women.

    All men? Are you sure?

    I think women do care about what certain men think of them — I’d say they care about what specific men whom they respect think of them individually, but they also care about what men as a sex think of women as a sex more generally, too.

    Now we get a bit closer to the truth. Some, probably most, women care about what some men think. Not all men, by a long shot.

    They *say* otherwise, of course, being strong, independent and all that, but really all of the endless bitching and moaning about any number of things means they very much do care about what men think,

    Chuckle. Are you really asserting that women’s desire for fried ice actually maps to them caring what men think? Seriously? Most women haven’t got a clue what men think, you know that.

    and are concerned about men thinking things about themselves specifically, or women generally, which could be harmful, restrictive or otherwise negatively impact themselves personally or women as a sex.

    That’s not “what men think”, that’s “what might affect my solipsistic self”. There’s a huge difference. Mychael cares what Scott thinks, we know not because she says so, but because she acts like it so far as anyone can care from blog postings.

    Actions. Words. Women are always turning words loose on themselves and each other. What do the actions of women tell us? That they are self-centered and vain, that they care what their female herd says, and that they want men to always be around to pick up the pieces of anything they break – but not hold them responsible for the breakage. And that’s the good side.

    When Dalrock writes about “women”, when you write about “women”, it seems to me you are both engaged in discussing a definite subset. MC to UMC and over 30, maybe over 40. It’s similar to Dalrock’s comments about how “women want to marry” – well, not before the age of 30, according to the stats that he’s cited. I’ve pointed out before that he’s basically looking in the rearview mirror and predicting where the car is going based on that.

    “Women care about what men think” – yeah, maybe those over 30 or over 40 who have hit the Wall and can’t easily replace the man they have. “Women care what their father says” – oh, yeah? 40% of women in their 20’s come from divorced homes, maybe they haven’t talked to him in years?

    I know you read Rollo’s site. Have you paid attention to YaReally’s postings on camgirls, on the under 25 club girls? Do you think that camgirls raking in coin from frustrated Beta and Gamma men really care what men think?

    While it may be comforting to think of the slutwalks as a “cry for attention”, an easier way to explain them is “in your face! I can do what I want when I want and nobody can say NO to me!”, because the latter explains many of the signs and costumes much, much better than the other.

    Both of you men should get out more, spend more time with people under 30, see what they are really like. The 80’s and 90’s are over, done.

  152. Peter says:

    Sean: “In the words of Vox Day, cite patristic sources or retract. The early Church Fathers certainly did not believe in any such thing. It wouldn’t be needed since one is a new creation already.”

    First, quit being an SJW. Second, you can do your own googling of sources. He stated a correct fact. If you want patristic sources get off your ass and look them up.

    Third, you are making your own religion up what with the “It wouldn’t be needed since one is a new creation already”. You hold a heretical position. Even St. Paul notes, 1 Corinthians 9:27
    “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    The 80’s and 90’s are over, done.

    Or to put it another way:

  154. Mark Hanson says:

    @AR – do you read? In the cited post I said that I would hold a woman who contracted someone to kill her born child accountable as a murderer. Clearly, then, I would also hold a woman who actually killed her born child accountable to the same charge

    But I also said in another post that, even if I would not arrest her under civil law, any Christian woman who aborted her child should be held accountable by her church, and excommunicated if unrepentant. This was not significantly different from Boxer’s answer.

    Of course, even if this might happen in my church, I doubt most churches would even deal with it.

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    @AR – do you read? In the cited post I said that I would hold a woman who contracted someone to kill her born child accountable as a murderer.

    Actually you wrote in the third person…
    A woman hiring someone to kill her two year old child would be considered as culpable as the man who carried out the deed.
    …a phrase that points away from you and towards someone else. I did not ask “what would someone …” I asked “what would YOU….”. There is a difference, and in my experience asking this question of various people, I have become familiar with various forms of squirming, goalpost shifting, etc.

    Clearly, then, I would also hold a woman who actually killed her born child accountable to the same charge

    Thank you for finally answering my question. It seems to make you rather uncomfortable to do so. Why do you think that is?

    But I also said in another post that, even if I would not arrest her under civil law, any Christian woman who aborted her child should be held accountable by her church, and excommunicated if unrepentant.

    More or less true, but so what?

    Of course, even if this might happen in my church, I doubt most churches would even deal with it.

    Exactly. There is a larger issue here than the usual “gotcha!” game played by a talking head on a politician – the issue of women’s agency. Hence my question to you, that you have finally answered.

  156. Bill Smith says:

    Purgatory is a non-Biblical idea that was added because reconciling the fact that someone can do really stupid stuff in their flesh (body) and be a “new man in Christ” in their spirit makes for some confusing states.

    Discussing this would take an entire blog.

  157. Snowy says:

    How is the pregnant woman who aborts a child the victim? The unborn child is the victim (of murder).

    I have worked in central sterilising departments of hospitals sterilising surgical instruments. I may be re-entering this field shortly. I’ve had to process instruments used in abortions, especially D & E (Dilation & Evacuation) instrument trays. If I get the job I’m aiming for, I have no doubt I’ll be sterilising instruments used in abortions again.

    It was always a sad day for me whenever I saw D & E’s on the theatre list. While processing the instruments, I would be meditating on and praying for the lost life, the mother, the father and their relatives, the theatre staff, and the surgeon; all concerned, really. I felt complicit. Occasionally I would see the responsible surgeon in the change room. D & E days were sad days for me, and most likely for all concerned. I would love to see abortion outlawed. I suppose the only ‘redeeming’ aspect was that the procedures (murders) were taking place in a highly controlled environment, rather than a backyard workshop.

    It seems there is more than one ‘victim’ in this sad and sorry affair.

  158. Smithborough says:

    Prosecuting women for having an abortion is possible, see Belfast Crown Court, Northern Ireland today:

    http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-woman-who-bought-drugs-on-internet-to-induce-miscarriage-given-suspended-prison-sentence-34597487.html

    She only got a suspended sentence. The prosecution was under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

  159. Kevin says:

    I don’t know why you give trump the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell he has no intellectual impulses at all and clearly has no thoughtful positions on abortion. He neither believed nor disbelieved anyone. He just had not thought about it before and lacks the sophistication to moderate his words with consideration for what people he is trying to win over might say.

    As for the rest of it the post confuses strategy with sentiment. The middle of America cannot be brought to be very enthusiastic about abortion and punishing women increases the negative view of the pro-life movement dramatically. So I might personally think we ought to punish women who participate in the murder of their children my public political view is that we would not do that. Why hold 2 views? Because I am not the only person in the world and when attempting to pursuade we often lead people from axiom to axiom not introduce the furthermost position.

    Trump got a lot of credit for blurting out whatever comes into his head while we revile other more strategic politicians. However as this makes clear, sometimes a little thoughtful nuance goes a long way.

  160. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Both of you men should get out more, spend more time with people under 30, see what they are really like. The 80’s and 90’s are over, done.

    I’m not arguing that fear of men’s disapproval is either the only force at work or is always the strongest force. I’m saying that women care what respected* men think. Likewise, I’m not arguing that young women’s desire to marry means they are willing to forgo the carousel until they approach the wall. By analogy, I’m explaining thrust and lift, and you are accusing me of denying the importance of drag and gravity. I understand drag and gravity very well, but they aren’t the only forces we need to consider when discussing why some planes crash while others fly.

    *Men who are respected by other men, which is a different (but not exclusive) category than men women find attractive. This ties in with women’s envy of being seen as “one of the guys”.

  161. Cassie says:

    @ Sean

    In the words of Vox Day, cite patristic sources or retract. The early Church Fathers certainly did not believe in any such thing. It wouldn’t be needed since one is a new creation already.

    The only reason you’re telling me to cite sources is because you don’t personally agree with what I said. Then you don’t offer any sources to back up your refutation to what I said. Funny, that. Anyways, I’m planning on putting up a few posts relating to this subject on my own blog within the next 1.5-2 months (as time allows and among other post ideas I have), where I’ll be citing my sources. If you actually wish to know those sources and/or discuss the issue, you’re more than welcome to come do so. In the meantime, you should probably do your own source-finding to back up your own position, if citing sources is that important to you.

    @ anonymous reader

    Really? I’m sure this is official dogma, and that you wish it to be actually practiced.

    But last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi and every single solitary member of the Kennedy family still gets communion at Mass, just for a start. Need I go into the details?

    For one thing, I was just trying to respond to the comment that asked about 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by saying what the RCC states on the subject. If you take issue with what they say and/or do about it, I’m not the one to take it up with since I have no authority on the issue: they are.

    Also, I’m not personally familiar with their Eucharistic habits, nor are you unless you happen to go to the same church as them. But assuming you’re correct, then what that means is that their priest and/or bishop isn’t doing what they should be doing. It doesn’t mean the Church in general turns a blind eye to someone getting an abortion. It’s like the NAWALT thing: I’m guessing you don’t take exceptions (to the general behavior of modern women) seriously enough to have a significant impact on your view of women in general. Those of us that don’t slut around, or who want a large family, etc: not prevalent enough to affect your view on women in general. So why should a random exception like that affect your view on the Church?

    @ Peter

    He stated a correct fact.

    I’m a *she* actually, but thanks for the backup anyways.🙂

    @ Bill Smith

    Discussing this would take an entire blog.

    Which is why I’m not going to derail Dalrock’s thread any more than I already have with the subject and won’t continue discussing it here after this comment. I’ll be posting about this on my own blog later on, as stated above.  

  162. Minesweeper says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I can say I agree with what you are saying about the lack of respect from women and even their want of desire from men to even appear respectful.

    Most of the women (I know) now hitting 40 who can only be described as disrespectful harridans (at best) have given birth to daughters who have taken up the gauntlet and multiplied their level of disrespect exponentially. The mothers involved have been hearing either via whispers or direct gov\media broadcasting that men are their oppresses for the last 50 years – it’s their time to rise up and their children are way more enraged than the mothers and unreachable to reason.

    Cue the campus crazies – which seems to be happening everywhere. Women have essentially been told the message that women are equal to men except that men are oppressive, violent, dangerous and have kept them down for 1000’s of years. And young women are believing this wholeheartedly.

    Never before have male educators faced this level of screaming out of control females backup by idiotic males on campus. (the males have lost all respect for all males as well).

  163. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not arguing that fear of men’s disapproval is either the only force at work or is always the strongest force. I’m saying that women care what respected* men think.

    And I’m saying that “some” and “all” are not synonyms, just as “is” and “ought” are not. For sure, “Women care what RESPECTED men think” is an improvement over the original observation, which was a sweeping generalization that’s trivial to disprove. Pareto, the 80 / 20 rule, just for a start demolishes it.

    But you still seem to be looking at a subgroup or a sub-sub-group of women and asserting that they represent all “women”. I’m trying to avoid that error when I work with /around college aged people.

    By analogy, I’m explaining thrust and lift, and you are accusing me of denying the importance of drag and gravity.

    No, I’m saying that there’s a lot more drag out there than you seem to realize, perhaps because you are mainly looking at older aircraft and ignoring new-model changes in configuration.

    I understand drag and gravity very well, but they aren’t the only forces we need to consider when discussing why some planes crash while others fly.

    Drag is getting worse, seems to me, based on my observation of people under 25. Let’s consider a few documentable facts.

    What percentage of births in the US this year will be to married women vs. unmarried women? Will that number be better or worse than 2 years ago? Is the “age of woman at time of first marriage” higher this year than 2 years ago? If “women want to marry”, how can these be explained? (Worse yet, what happens to “age of woman at first marriage” if the UMC is excluded from the data set?)

    What percentage of women under 25 are cam-girls for profit? If “women care what men think”, how can this be explained?

    What percentage of women under 30 have an N >= their age? If “women care what men think”, how can this be explained?

    Some women for sure care about what some men think. The question is, is this universal? I don’t see any real evidence to support that, and see evidence opposing it all around me; there is simply zero need for male provisioning to the vast majority of women under 30 now. So if women don’t need men for resources, all they need is men for “companionship”, and they don’t really need to care all that much what a replaceable “companion” thinks about anything, do they? If all a woman wants is some tolerable guy to Netflix with, his opinion beyond the most superficial on the “Doritos or Tostadas” level is just not that important, is it?

    Frankly, I’m beginning to suspect that to some extent, women have to be trained to care what any man thinks. It’s learned behavior, unlike attraction, and therefore not to be expected in women that are more on the feral side of the street. You seem to be claiming that women naturally care what “men” think, for some nebulous definition of “men”.

    I’m saying that is not accurate, because it does not match reality.

    Look, we have ample anecdotal evidence from women associated with the androsphere that “submission” in the Bible sense is in fact learned behavior, and that it is difficult for all women some of the time, and difficult for some women all of the time. A key part of submission: caring what one particular man says. Therefore, a learned behavior that is difficult to do consistently.

    Compare and contrast with a random slutwalker carrying a sign “My Body My Choice”, does Suzy Slutcheeks really care all that much what “men” or any particular man thinks about her, beyond “Whoa! She’s hawt!” for a moment or three? It’s the reality she has been trained to live in, a reality where any boundary at all on her behavior is “oppression” and “men” are either hotties (20%) or oppressor-creeps (80%).

    The special snowflakes are really very special, indeed. The drag looks worse to me. Maybe that’s why more planes are not even getting off of the ground?

  164. Anonymous Reader says:

    But last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi and every single solitary member of the Kennedy family still gets communion at Mass, just for a start. Need I go into the details?

    Cassie
    For one thing, I was just trying to respond to the comment that asked about 2nd, 3rd and 4th abortions by saying what the RCC states on the subject.

    You made an assertion about the real world, saying “This is what happens”, yet in reality it appears that there are glaring exceptions.

    If you take issue with what they say and/or do about it, I’m not the one to take it up with since I have no authority on the issue: they are.

    I’m merely pointing out that your claim is an “ought”, and that it does not match what “is”.

    Also, I’m not personally familiar with their Eucharistic habits, nor are you unless you happen to go to the same church as them.

    If you search I believe you can find individuals within the RC Church who strongly object, in vain, to the Pelosis and others receiving communion at Mass. What “ought” is not what “is” true.

    But assuming you’re correct, then what that means is that their priest and/or bishop isn’t doing what they should be doing.

    Yes.

    It doesn’t mean the Church in general turns a blind eye to someone getting an abortion.

    Yeah, it pretty much proves exactly that. Unless you are going to argue that any given bishop or priest isn’t actually part of the church hierarchy at that moment?

    It’s like the NAWALT thing: I’m guessing you don’t take exceptions (to the general behavior of modern women) seriously enough to have a significant impact on your view of women in general.

    There are better ways to obtain information than guessing. You might consider trying such things as “thinking” or “asking”.

    So why should a random exception like that affect your view on the Church?

    Pelosi and the Kennedies are pretty high profile people, who on the one hand profess the RCC as their church, and on the other hand don’t have a problem with abortion. If the RCC hierarchy actually believed its own dogma, then Pelosi for a start would be refused communion. So far as I can tell, she isn’t. What does that tell me about just how seriously the RCC hierarchy takes its own dogma?

    You are telling me to ignore the actions / inactions of your church and believe your words instead. Sorry, dearie, that’s not how I reason.

  165. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I have some thoughts rumbling around in my head about the difference between ‘attraction’ and ‘respect’. The PUA’s have shown that attraction is largely innate in women rather conclusively. I’m pondering how much of respect (woman for man) is innate and how much is learned behavior, frankly right now I’m leaning towards “learned” by a wide margin. When I have something more useful to say I’ll probably tag it here rather than the current thread, if that is acceptable.

    [D: Of course.]

  166. Dalrock says:

    @Kevin

    I don’t know why you give trump the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell he has no intellectual impulses at all and clearly has no thoughtful positions on abortion. He neither believed nor disbelieved anyone. He just had not thought about it before and lacks the sophistication to moderate his words with consideration for what people he is trying to win over might say.

    I didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. I can’t know for sure, but my personal guess is he was trying to pander to the pro life crowd. But this post isn’t about Trump’s motivations. You say he “lacks sophistication”, but his expectation for logical consistency is entirely understandable. The problem isn’t that he didn’t think the issue through, but that the folks he was trying to curry favor with are in deep denial.

    As for the rest of it the post confuses strategy with sentiment. The middle of America cannot be brought to be very enthusiastic about abortion and punishing women increases the negative view of the pro-life movement dramatically. So I might personally think we ought to punish women who participate in the murder of their children my public political view is that we would not do that. Why hold 2 views? Because I am not the only person in the world and when attempting to pursuade we often lead people from axiom to axiom not introduce the furthermost position.

    This isn’t what the pro life leaders said in response to Trump’s statements. They were outraged that Trump would propose any punishment for women who (in a future hypothetical) procured illegal abortions. They felt that punishing a woman who did such a thing would be categorically* unjust. This isn’t about political pragmatism (unlike the video upthread here about the Oklahoma law). The outrage from the pro life leadership was that Trump wanted to punish victims. I provided multiple quotes backing this up (along with links to more), so I’m not sure how you overlooked it.

    *Although Pastor Wilson allowed for a theoretical exception to punish a woman who procured an abortion who was herself an abortionist. This is a clear case of the exception proving the rule.

  167. I briefly looked at different laws and cases. It seemed as if you were to cause the death of a “wanted” child, a pregnant woman wanted to carry and deliver, it could/will be considered murder. And if you cause the death of the mother and unborn child you may be charged with two murders.

    Wanted child = murder.
    Unwanted child = not murder.

  168. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Dalrock,

    The problem isn’t that he didn’t think the issue through, but that the folks he was trying to curry favor with are in deep denial.

    This. Holy smokes, this! I’d say its even “deeper” than that though.

    Yes those Trump is trying to curry favor with are in deep denial. But at the deepest level I’d say that those in the pro-life movement who REFUSE to hold women accountable for being a willing participant in the murder of the child in their own womb, do so not necessarily because they see the mother as another victim (that is the denial part) but instead, because they don’t expect women in general to know right from wrong on this matter. I think that is it at the deepest level.

    Think about it this way Dalrock. The voting public does NOT hold democrat candidates up the same level of scrutiny that they do GOP candidates. They never did. They never will. That is because the voters expect better behavior of GOP candidates than they do democrats. So right off the bat, a GOP Trump (and his two infidelity induced divorces) is always going to be held to account far more than gold-digging divorced John Kerry ever would. The same is true for men and women. We send male teachers to prison for engaging in sexual intercourse with their consenting students (male or female) but we shrug our shoulders and excuse female teachers of having sex with their consenting students because… well…. we don’t hold women to same level of accountability. We would instantly execute a man for murdering a woman (maybe even only raping her), but we can’t seem to execute a Jodi Arias. And we also find ourselves excusing the murderer of Meridith Kercher. And why? Because Amanda Knox is a woman (and a very pretty one.) We hold women to a lower standard of morality, unaccountable for their actions.

    I think that is it at the deepest level. A mother consents to murdering her unborn child, at the deepest level we refuse to hold her accountable because she is a woman… first.

  169. Minesweeper says:

    AR,

    maybe on some level we excuse female behavior as without women breeding humanity is finished and quickly. women are a limited resource and birth does involve at least in the past alot of risk on her behalf of permanent illness or death.

    maybe its buried in our subconscious somewhere, without our fresh children or the possibility of everything dies. see the villages in Japan that are ghost towns now, just the over 50’s left and only a few kids running around. even the old people totally lose all justification to do anything as life without new humans is pointless.

  170. Minesweeper says:

    comment above for IBB

  171. innocentbystanderboston says:

    maybe on some level we excuse female behavior as without women breeding humanity is finished and quickly. women are a limited resource and birth does involve at least in the past a lot of risk on her behalf of permanent illness or death.

    Yes. I’d say you are right. I’m sure this is a major part of why society does NOT hold women to the same level of accountability that it does, men. I’d only argue that the “…level we excuse female behavior…” (your words) is closer to a digital on-off/true-false/yes-no than it is a more analog volume dial thingie in the sense that the amp in Spinal Tap goes to 11.

    We just “excuse” and “forgive” women. Because they are women.

  172. Minesweeper says:

    @IBB,
    “We just “excuse” and “forgive” women. Because they are women.” (your words)

    Because if we don’t, civilization in finished ! If we held women to the same standard as men how many would be in jail ? 33% alone have an abortion during their life, a good 20% seem BPD/psychotic at least, most would be classed as emotionally abusive, slap happy- physically abusive.

    I wonder, if women were held to the same standard that men are nowadays, how many wouldn’t be in jail or would have been at least once?

  173. Minesweeper says:

    this is a good video by a woman no less, don’t accuse me of being sexist !
    if a woman can get the jail from hiring a hit-man to kill her husband, why not a mother to kill her unborn ? it pains me that we even have to live in this culture and have to talk about this. Its an abomination that hasn’t existed in our culture ever before.

    God help us all.

  174. Anon says:

    For a political candidate, there is no reason to take a ‘Pro-Life’ position as of 2016. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned as long as the US exists as a nation-state. There are few legal/political predictions safer than that.

    The few people who decide their votes on this alone are probably not voting for Trump anyway. There is no need for him to comment on the issue at all.

    He can win over the same people just by changing the subject and posting photos of him with his 8 little grandchildren. Don’t talk of abortion at all, just say how much his grandchildren add to his life, and let each partisan’s hamster fill in the blanks…

  175. Minesweeper says:

    @Anon, no I think there is a reason to take a ‘Pro-Life’ position as of 2016.

    Trumps call, while looking like fumbling in the dark is genius, can we really say this is not Gods man for our generation ?

    All has been exposed, the darkness has been brought into the light. We need radical solutions for the entire western hemisphere or we are finished and rightfully so. Gods blessing can be removed and it will be if things continue.

  176. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/04/06 | Free Northerner

  177. Pingback: Aborted morality. – Kreed Wilkinson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s