Before you read any further, please watch the YouTube clip above - starting at 9:40 and going all the way to the end of the clip. I watch quite a bit of CNN, and I'm sure neither I nor anyone else who watches CNN or some other news channel or even listens or reads news coming from the popular media could avoid hearing the firestorm which erupted following presidential candidate Donald Trump's answer to interviewer Chris Matthew's question to him last week regarding abortion and whether a woman should be "punished" for seeking one or having one if abortion is made illegal. First a disclaimer: I don't support Trump in his presidential aspirations and I'm not one to often agree with Trump - not even now. Not even now especially since he backtracked and walked back his comments concerning abortion. Who knows what he really believes? Trump has changed his stance on a great many things over the years. I think that his answer concerning abortion was probably an attempt to appeal to what he thought his base believes.
Let's take Trump out of the equation. I'm much more concerned with issues and arguments than I am with people when it comes to these kind of things - particularly when the person or persons in question are those for whom there is often a knee-jerk gag reflex or rejection. So, let's take Trump out of it and think about the substance of what was said and the larger issue of abortion and punishment itself. The media have framed Trump's "should be punished" comment as if it were an absolute. The question had not been framed in that way. The way it was framed was in the context of abortion being illegal. This fact is very important to note. If we take off our ThoughtCrime and SpeakCrime filters it shouldn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that if someone does something illegal there ought to be some kind of penalty. Mathews should be commended for the consistency evident in his question and for his callingTrump (and by implication the Pro-Life side) to consistency in the issue. Can you think of any other illegal action for which this is not the case? You can call it a "penalty" or you can call it a "punishment" - the two are similar enough it shouldn't matter. Simply put, for any legal system to have teeth and to indeed make any kind of sense, there must be some kind of penalty for illegal actions.
When we understand that illegal actions should have some kind of penalty, then the substance of what Trump said (before he backtracked later) has a logic behind it that's unassailable. That is much more than I can say for much of the popular Pro-Life movement who are distancing themselves, virtually tripping over themselves, to disassociate their movement from any notion that the woman seeking the abortion or getting the abortion is anything more than a victim. They (much of the Pro-Life movement) evidently are more concerned with being invited to the right parties and having the right political friends than they are with being consistent in their position. I do NOT respect this at all. After all, if (as they say) abortion is the intentional taking of the life of a fully-human person who has not been convicted of any crime warranting death, then our legal system should call it "murder." Consequently, if it is murder, then should there not be some kind of penalty for the person who essentially hires a hit man (the abortionist) to do the dirty work? Sure, there are often complicated circumstances and even a degree of coercion involved, but this is also the case for the intentional killing of human persons who are killed outside the womb. Should the killer of a two-year-old, a five-year-old, or a thirty-year-old escape all punishment because they were "victims" in the sense that they may have had very unfavorable life circumstances contributing to their committing a crime? Is it not possible to be guilty in one sense while nonetheless being a victim in another sense? Yes it is possible. I'm sure it is even very common. The categories are not mutually exclusive. We punish killers of two, five, and thirty-year olds. We even punish those who don't actually do the physical killing itself but still willfully contribute to the killing of these people. Where is the consistency when it comes to abortion - the willful killing of those in the womb?
I have more respect (definitely more respect in regard to intellectual integrity) for the pro-choice person who denies the human personhood of the unborn and therefore says abortion should be legal at any stage than I do for the "pro-life" person who boldly proclaims the unborn are human persons worthy of the legal protection you and I enjoy in regard to life but then entirely throw away their consistency when faced with the prospect of their view being deemed "extreme" or some other hated label. If the Pro-Life movement is to succeed, it needs to be bold. It not only needs to be bold, but it needs to be consistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. If the Pro-Life movement proffers a consistent argument then it and its adherents may suffer disrepute, scorn, and loss of friends, but I see this as the only way to eventual victory not to mention the only way to be truly obedient. Furthermore, as Christians (which make up the bulk of the Pro-Life movement), we should ultimately be most concerned with honoring Christ. Christ is the embodiment of Truth, and so our thoughts, words, and actions should be the epitome of truth and consistency. Also, like Christ, we should be ready and willing to bear with humility the pejorative labels affixed to us for our principled stands. Many in the Pro-Life movement - including political figures affirming the Pro-Life position need to do some soul-searching and repent of their inconsistency and cowardice.
