Does the pro-life movement have a leg to stand on when claiming that Trump’s idea to punish women who get illegal abortions goes against everything they stand for? By now we’ve all heard about Trump’s statement in favor of punishing women who have illegal abortions, and his subsequent change of heart in response to widespread consternation. It turns out that virtually no one supports this idea. Obviously pro-choice advocates who believe that abortion is a human right are opposed to punishing women who seek abortions. The more nuanced case is that of the pro-life advocates, who see women receiving abortions as victims of the crime. This group says we should punish doctors, and help women on the path towards recovery.

But does this actually hold with the case laid out by pro-life groups for why abortion should be illegal? The basic tenants of anti-abortionism rely on the idea that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder. Anti-abortion lawyers argue that the state has an interest in protecting the life of the fetus because it is a human life. By that logic, if a woman chooses to get an abortion, she is at least an accomplice to the murder performed by the doctor. She willingly takes critical steps in making it happen.

Even further, to take the stance that women are the victims of abortion is to see women as the objects of their own reproductive choices, rather than the subjects. It ignores the agency of women seeking and receiving abortions.

I want to be clear here: I am not making the case that abortion should be illegal, or that abortion is murder. I’m just trying to follow the logical progression that starts with those presumptions, because I don’t think it works to argue that women aren’t culpable in the murder if you argue that it is a murder. I believe that this reaction to Trump’s statement about punishing women reveals fundamental fallacies in the anti-abortion movement.

Of course, there is more to this conversation than whether or not life starts at conception. The ethical conundrum of abortion needs to take into account the life, health, and rights of the mother, and the conservative stance on the issue struggles to do so. In taking a moment to give lip service to the rights of women seeking abortion the pro-life movement revealed this gap in their case. Unfortunately, punishing women for getting illegal abortions seems to fall right in line with what the anti-abortion movement argues.

**By the way, this is an issue worth following these days, as the sharply divided 8-person Supreme Court is hearing a major abortion case.

Among the many apocalyptic predictions about a hypothetical Trump Presidency is one that I find supremely interesting: an implosion of the Republican Party. If Trump were to take the Republican ticket to the Oval Office, his decisions and mistakes would matter, and they would have the attention of the whole world focused on them.  People would notice. If President Trump represents the Republican Party in office the way he is representing it on the campaign trail it is hard to imagine many Republicans winning elections in 2018, and almost impossible to imagine a Republican in the Oval Office in 2020 or even 2024. Trump’s potential damage to the image of the Republican Party as a conservative, responsible, and safe choice could force the party to completely reinvent itself.*

Of course it is possible that as president he could be less of a disaster than many (including myself) predict. He would definitely be embarrassing, and he would definitely be a big step back in the area of racial equality and social progress, among other things. But, while it is possible that Trump could become a non-catastrophic president, it is also very possible that he would be the worst president in modern history. In this piece, let’s talk about what happens then to the Republican Party.

Trump’s buffoonery on the campaign circuit may well be an act that he is putting on for the voters, and we might see a different side of him when he’s no longer campaigning. However, even if we do believe that he’s not as bigoted as he appears or as impulsive as he has lately come off, it is hard to imagine that a man who had not heard of the Syrian refugee crisis in September of 2015 is stronger on foreign policy than we know. It is hard to imagine that a man who has promised to shut down parts of the internet has any depth of understanding of the American Constitution or the structure and format of the American Presidency (or, perhaps even more concerning, what the internet is).

America deserves better than the choice between Donald Trump and whoever his opponent is. Our top candidates should challenge each other on the issues, highlight the most important differences between the choices facing our country, and let the American people decide who best can lead us moving forward. They should be encouraged to base their positions in facts and intellect. In short, they should have a substantive debate.

I would love for there to be a real choice for me to make in November. As it is, my choice is to vote for the Democrat, or vote for someone who, in addition to other problematic stances, doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, refuses to consider addressing the epidemic of gun violence, and is opposed to defending the rights of the LGBTQ community. I wish a guy like Bloomberg could run with the knowledge that if he lost the winner would still be capable of holding the highest executive office without catastrophe. Instead, Bloomberg’s choice was made for him the same way mine was and the same way many of our country’s was. He couldn’t run because if he did, Trump might win. We can’t vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee, because if we do, Trump might win.

There is and always has been an important place for conservatism, and the issues that Republican voters care about are vital. But in order for our country to progress, we need to be able to talk about how to protect religious liberties in conjunction with defending the rights of non-religious people. Religious freedom cannot continue to be used to defend prejudice and exclusion. We need to be able to use the best research available to learn how we can reduce gun violence while still honoring the intent of the second amendment. The Second Amendment cannot continue to be used to devalue the lives taken by gun violence. Our government does have to have a focus on promoting growth and prosperity, but it also has to ensure that the least well-off have opportunity to succeed and enough to survive. Capitalistic and free trade dogma cannot continue to be used as excuses to let millions of people live in deep poverty.

If Trump is inaugurated on January 20th, 2017, we have a lot to be concerned about. But if his presidency is the start of a reinvention of the Republican Party, there could be a bright silver lining to that day. Nothing is more productive than healthy debate, and a strong, reasonable Republican Party would be tremendously welcome. There is, in fact, a longer history of reasonableness than there is of the current insanity in the party. In 1980, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, two of the more revered leaders in the party’s recent history, talked about immigration with an obvious thoughtfulness and concern for humanity. By today’s standards we would have called their answers liberal. Back then, the two parties could compromise and everyone from the voters to the politicians was less polarized. Maybe if Donald Trump is president the fallout could bring back the level of dialogue that was commonplace in the 80’s and 90’s. Maybe the people who hold conservative views won’t have to put up with their party being opposed to scientific fact and social progress. Maybe we’ll all have a better landscape of choice by 2024.

This might be too optimistic. Maybe I have too much faith in the opportunity for positive change. But just like I choose to believe that Trump will not be our next president, I also choose to believe that if he were, some real good could come from it. For an extra note of optimism, maybe even if Trump loses this election the Republican Party would start to make these shifts. Could the Trump candidacy be enough to cause it? Maybe.

*A note of skepticism about the likeliness of this change: after Romney lost in 2012, the party did make promises to enact big changes in order to stay relevant. Key strategies included doing a better job of appealing to women and Latino voters. Obviously something went wrong there.

For a change of pace, here are a few thoughts I had while watching tonight’s debate between Clinton and Sanders. These are some of my off the cuff reactions to what was said.

“We will end institutional racism.” – Sanders. Woah. In a discussion about the blind spots Sanders and Clinton have when it comes to race, this statement struck me as a poor choice. Institutional racism can’t be ended just by a Sanders presidency, and insinuating that it can seems like a racial blind spot in its own right. I’d like to see Sanders focus on making himself seem like a viable agent of change, rather than continuing to make unrealistic claims like this.

I wish Hillary would answer questions about her legislative record by owning the consequences of what she has supported. Tell me why your position made sense at the time, and tell me why your experiences since have lead you to your current stance. I’d rather have a president who has learned from their experiences, successes, and mistakes, than one who hasn’t made those mistakes.

On education: Clinton had a list of steps she would take to improve on floundering public school systems like Detroit’s and Flint’s. Sanders had a passionate statement about why we need to do a better job on education, but he lacked the substantive content of what we should do to make that happen.

Sanders just joked that Republicans are mentally ill. I don’t know if he was referring to the candidates, the voters, or both, but regardless, woah.

Hillary says Trumps bigotry won’t wear well on the American people. I think she might want to take another look at the polls and the votes cast. Sadly, I think she’s wrong there.

“Do you believe that god is relevant. Why, or why not?” What a question. Followed by: “To whom and for whom do you pray?” Watching Clinton and Sanders try to sell their godliness was kind of like watching Kasich try to talk about gay rights on the Republican stage as if he was as passionately opposed to progress as the guys around him. I loved that Sanders went right to an explanation of why morality is important, and didn’t actually talk about his relationship, or lack thereof, with god, religion, or prayer. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

It’s interesting that Sanders loves to remind us that he’s never had much money, while Trump loves to remind us that he’s super wealthy. Can both of these opposite realities entice voters? Can they each only entice a certain kind of voter?

All in all, some interesting moments and I’m glad I tuned in, but nothing earth shattering was said. The general election debates will be dramatically different, and I hope the nominee is ready to handle the ugly fight ahead. Until then, it’s nice to hear some substantive, respectful, and thoughtful discussion.