You have my permission to begin the full retard even before I get here :)
I would say that Blitzers and Donald have something in common here, they both lack the general historical knowledge in regards to the abortion issue. Of course this is no simple issue.
So for the both of them it's a matter of learning the facts as well as the historical record. e.g yes Blitzers, as I linked to in Pol3$ RHINO thread with that article
Reagan's Darkest hour, Reagan signed the biggest abortion bill for California before Roe vs Wade thus allowing for 100.000 abortions a year. Sure he regretted it, even regretted ignoring his trusted advisor on the issue, but he too was in error as errors tend to happen when one is not considerably educated in a matter.
In Donald's case, not only is he not so educated on the subject (it's a given as he is not really pro or con on the issue, that's not what this election is about), he likely has mixed information of what he does know on the subject. This is undoubtedly an influence from NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood propaganda where as they have created the urban legend of which Women were punished for abortion before the federal ruling of Roe vs. Wade. I mean chicken little shit to huge proportions. He has had dealings with Planned Parenthood in the past, so likely their message had influenced his knowledge of the issue, incorrectly as is their message.
The truth of the matter is, women were considered the "second victim" in cases of illegal abortions among the states before roe vs. wade (and this should still be a state level issue imo). So there was no real prosecution on the matter regarding a woman's participation. Of course as well, Donald didn't give any opinion towards "prosecution" as he would not answer and rightfully said "I don't know", but just that there should be some penalty in the matter for women if in fact abortion were to be illegal to whatever extent.
With his lack of knowledge on the issue, as well as Planned Parenthood propaganda he had likely been exposed to, I would contribute his response to the general understanding of the rule of law. If you break the law there is some form of penalty within a lawful society. This would generally make sense, yet this particular issue is so contested, convoluted and filled with all sorts of varying opinions, well sense is not something contributed to the issue of this nature.
I have no great issue with it, with what he said (were words not action), he just wasn't properly brought up to speed regarding the issue yet has since then recanted on his original comment as I'm sure his pro-life advisors corrected him regarding. Of course our culture of victimhood will continue to suffer victimization no matter the insult perceived.
