Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Chris Matthews: If you believe abortion’s murder, “you go after the person” who had the abortion

    Chris Matthews: If you believe abortion’s murder, “you go after the person” who had the abortion

    Matthews: refusing to punish woman who has an abortion is ‘treating her like a child’

    Chris Matthews gave generally respectful treatment to pro-life activist Abby Johnson, who appeared on last night’s Hardball in the context of discussing the March for Life. But Matthews challenged Johnson on the position—generally adopted by the pro-life movement—that the only person who should be punished is the doctor performing the abortion, and not the woman who chose to have one.

    Said Matthews: “If abortion’s a murder and the person who goes to an abortion clinic is given no sanctions, no punishment whatever, there’s something that doesn’t square there . . . if you believe it’s murder, you go after the person who went to the clinic to have the abortion. Or else you treat her like a child, a vulnerable person who’s not really a grownup . . . Going after the doctor is a cute way of avoiding the question. If it’s murder, act on it. If it’s not, stop saying it.”

    Johnson, who worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic but resigned after watching an abortion on ultrasound and became a pro-life activist, indicated that she prefers to call abortion the killing of a human life rather than murder, but in any case opposes punishment for the woman.

    Earlier in the segment, Matthews rolled a clip of his interview of Donald Trump from last year in which the then-candidate said there had to be “some form of punishment” for women who have an abortion. Trump subsequently changed his position, calling the women victims, and saying only the doctor should be punished.

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: Since campaigning for president, Donald Trump has taken a much harder stance on abortion. It’s changed a bit. But here’s what he told me in March, of last year.

    MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion: yes or no, as a principle?

    DONALD TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

    MATTHEWS: For the woman?

    TRUMP: Yeah: there has to be some form.

    . . .

    MATTHEWS: Here’s my problem with your position. And I respect your values completely. If abortion’s a murder and the person who goes to an abortion clinic is given no sanction, no punishment whatever, there’s something that doesn’t square there. Either you believe it’s murder or you don’t. And if you believe it’s murder you go after the person who went to the clinic to have the abortion. Or else you treat her like a child, a vulnerable person who’s not really a grownup, and you get it both ways. Women have maturity, they’ve got the right to make a judgment, and when they make a judgment, they find doctor to give them the procedure. Going after doctor is a cute way of avoiding the question. If it’s murder, act on it. If it’s not, stop saying it. Stop saying: it’s murder if you’re not going to act on it as if it is murder. That’s my problem with it. It’s called a conflict of truth.

    ABBY JOHNSON: I actually don’t say it’s murder. I say that it’s killing

    MATTHEWS: A lot of your crowd do. Killing. Okay, killing. Killing people, you’re saying.

    JOHNSON: Killing a human being.

    MATTHEWS: And if it’s killing, what is it? Should it be outlawed?

    JOHNSON: It depends.

    MATTHEWS: Should the person be punished for doing it?

    JOHNSON: It depends. Murder is technically a legal term.

    MATTHEWS: Should the person who has an abortion be punished? I ask the same question —

    JOHNSON: I do not. I do not believe they should be punished.

    MATTHEWS: But it is murder.

    JOHNSON: If it’s legally considered murder then it would be murder.

    MATTHEWS: But it shouldn’t be punished?

    JOHNSON: It depends on the situation.

    MATTHEWS: You just said it should be, it shouldn’t be.

    JOHNSON: I think that a woman should be not be punished.

    MATTHEWS: Even though it’s murder?

    JOHNSON: Correct.

    MATTHEWS: Strange point of view here. I don’t understand the metaphysics. I just don’t understand. Anyway, Abby Johnson, you have the total right to hold that position even though it’s in total conflict.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     2 
     
     0
    maxmillion | January 28, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Actually, there should be some form of legal consequences for the mother. The question is how severe.

    Selective-child is not one-child. Whereas the latter reflected a minority psychopathy, the former reflects a majority. Whereas the latter was normalized by the Communist Party, the former was normalized by the State-established Pro-Choice Church (e.g. Democratic Party). Separation of Pro-Choice Church and State is the first step. Restoring the integrity of science is the second step. The first two steps are correcting institutional and political corruption. Reversing normalization (e.g. cultural corruption) of abortion rites is the third step. We don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We do want to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic climate change that would be caused by forcefully removing people’s heads from the twilight zone.

    That just isn’t the political reality. In a recent Gallup poll, where people were asked whether abortion should be legal in all circumstances, illegal in all circumstances, or legal under certain circumstances, the numbers were 29%, 19%, and 50%. So to read that another way, there’s both a broad consensus that abortion should be restricted, and a broad consensus that it should still be available under certain circumstances.

    Treating a woman like a child is believing three months isn’t enough time for her to make a decision.


       
       0 
       
       0
      n.n in reply to Jingo. | January 28, 2017 at 4:50 pm

      Perhaps we need education reform. Someone is teaching the fantasy of spontaneous conception, and promoting the prejudice of [class] diversity and life unworthy.

    I think that abortion will always be treated somewhat differently than murder in out society in much the same way that attempted suicide is not treated as attempted murder. If one takes into consideration the concept of inclusive fitness in the manner of Hamilton (the biologist), then abortion can be looked upon as containing an element of suicide in the sense of acting against biologically continuing the family line. This is not the case for the agent who performs the abortion, who like Jack Kevorkian, is culpable for facilitating acts of suicide.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Mac45 in reply to alcuin. | January 28, 2017 at 11:56 pm

      Attempted suicide is accepted as prima facia evidence of mental incapacitation as it is assumed that no sane person would attempt to kill themselves. However, this does not absolve a person from his actions, in this regard. Usually, a person is adjudged mentally ill faces commitment for an unspecified period of time, for attempting to kill themselves. So, let’s adjudicate mothers who abort their unborn children as being mentally ill and commit them to a secure psychiatric facility until cured.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend