Of course they’d punish women
Ofall the idiotic, offthe-cuff utterly offensive remarks Donald Trump has allowed to slip from his cavernous, flapping, unthinking piehole this is the thing that set so many conservatives off ? That he went too far on abortion?
During a town- hall style exchange last week, the front- runner for the Republican presidential nomination was asked about reproductive rights. This led to a lengthy exchange with the moderator, MSNBC journalist Chris Matthews, during which Matthews backed Trump into admitting he’d support some kind of punishment for abortion.
“If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law,” said Matthews. “Should abortion be punished?”
After more preamble, Trump responded: “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.”
“For the woman,” Matthews clarified.
“Yeah, there has to be some form.”
Ag hast, Trump’ s team quickly recanted. He meant punishment for the doctors, surely, not for women, they insisted.
Soon even other staunchly pro- life politicians were attempting to salvage the mess.
“The whole point is redemption, saving the babies, saving the mothers. Being pro- life means you’re trying to make things better, not see if you can hurt somebody. And I just don’t think he had thought it through,” said Mike Huckabee, for example.
This is putting quite the pretty shade of pink on the position, now isn’t it?
If pro- life advocates were content to stick to a conversation about personal redemption and what should be acceptable to civil society, I would have no objection to their stance. But that’s not what this conversation has been about, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
The abortion debate is not confined to a question of what is morally palatable. It’s a fight over what should be legally available and is, thus, one that involves questions of criminal culpability.
I’m staunchly pro- choice and anti-Trump and, quite frankly, I find his un- recanted response utterly unobjectionable. If a prolife politician genuinely believes human life begins at conception and that abortion is an act of murder, then punishing offenders is a perfectly logical position. Meanwhile, the reaction from fellow pro- lifers — that advocating some form of criminal deterrent is “terrible” — is coming from the very same people who would use the power of the state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and to give birth against t heir will. None of them are exactly offering up compassion and cake.
If the belief that abortion is an act of murder were truly a defensible moral argument, why are so many committed cultural warriors decrying a rare example of one of Trump’s logically consistent stances? I would argue that it’s not because they disagree with it, but rather that his candour reveals the brutal truth of their own rhetoric. They are uncomfortable with terminating fetuses, but equally iffy about putting desperate abortion- seekers in jail for the act. And rather than take the time to feel out the edges of that discomfort, they are weaseling out of the question by talking instead about compassion for misguided women, personal redemption and the evils of abortion doctors.
That’s certainly easier. It’s softer pabulum for the general public. It’s also a complete crock.
Adult women are not soft- headed lambs tricked by the abortion- industrial complex into wrong- headed notions about when human life begins. Pro- life activists themselves have ensured that this question is impossible to avoid. Most woman of child- bearing age today have endured sex education, usually starting as early as elementary school. We are well-informed about the biological realities of reproduction.
Even in less fortunate U.S. states, where this is not the case, Google is readily available. There are reams of information providing reliable week-by-week data on fetal development; YouTube is replete with ultrasound videos and pictures; the Internet is chockablock with detailed proofs of fingernails, eyelid development and even some fascinating scientific literature on when consciousness develops. It’s all right there.
No one can credibly claim that women today are innocent. We are capable of weighing our personal beliefs against our needs and choosing accordingly. The fact that so many continue to opt for abortion is not a sign of some tragic ignorance of ethics or biology. It’s a choice, freely made.
So if pro- life advocates believe that life begins at conception — and, although I disagree with it, I can respect that as a position — then they have no excuse for this squeamishness. According to the logic of their own world view, they should be willing to punish abortion-seekers and doctors alike. Trump declined to elaborate whether he would prefer jail terms or fines or community service, of course, but if the latter two would suffice, isn’t this a tacit admission that one doesn’t hold a fetal life in the same regard as an adult one?
All the entirely pragmatic reasons we might come up with to weasel out of prosecuting women—com passion, for instance—we could apply to those who take fully formed adult lives, as well. Stunningly, t he people who seem to avert their eyes from strict criminal sanction in this case never seem to be the same ones who advocate for harm reduction or rehabilitation in other areas of the criminal justice system.
When pro-life rs stand in front of abortion clinics waving signs that read “abortion is murder” what, exactly, did they imagine that meant, if not this? The implications have long been entirely clear to the rest of us.
ADULT WOMEN ARE NOT SOFT-HEADED LAMBS TRICKED BY THE ABORTION-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX INTO WRONG-HEADED NOTIONS. — JEN GERSON