The Phantom has to admit: He has not recently, if ever, considered whether it makes sense to punish a doctor who performs an abortion without also punishing the woman, who is, after all, if abortion is a crime, at least an accomplice.
If a woman solicits a hit man to kill her husband, she is guilty of murder. Just ask Pam Smart. So, if a woman solicits a doctor to "kill" her "baby" is she not complicit?
(All this sets aside whether or not abortion ought to be considered a crime.)
When faced with this question, the Donald shrugged and said, "Sure."
Now he has reconsidered, apparently. Or, at least, he has elaborated.
He was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking me a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer. But of course not, and I said that afterwards. Everybody understands that.
If this doesn't clear things up, well then, I don't know what will.
After 8 years of President Barack Obama, who answers every question as if it is an invitation to a doctoral thesis, it is so refreshing to get a straightforward, no nonsense answer from his successor.
No comments:
Post a Comment