Well, there it is. There are significant problems with it as with all of the attack ads from both candidates this election race. Trump’s ads are quick of course to attack Hellery as morally corrupt. It doesn’t really take much to prove this. In fact, in many ways, from what I’ve witnessed, Hellery has officially become a parody of her own self. But Trump himself is no moral example either. He is a bully, a fornicator, and a trigynist.
That said, the question should be asked whether this attack ad on Trump for women’s day is in the least bit fair. Hillary of course chooses to start off with a topic that actually divides many people. In fact, Hillary seems to be suggesting that when she is elected, Americans won’t even be allowed a choice as to whether they should attempt to preserve the infant until birth. As I mentioned yesterday, the idea that pro-abortionist stances are in the least bit “feminist” is not only theologically and philosophically flawed but is significantly biologically flawed as well. If Hillary actually genuinely believes we are united by more than what we are divided on, she really needs to re-direct her campaign away from issues concerning abortion or we will be united by less than what we are divided on. It’s not a “pro-religion” stance she is taking in this race. Rather, it is a highly anti-religion stance she is taking (or more-so, her own warped form of Christianity–if you can call it that).
So is Trump anti-women by arguing that women who procure an abortion should be punished? The question is what Clinton herself makes in regard to Roman Catholic canon law. According to canons 1397-1398. If, for instance, it is an attack on women to punish women for procuring an abortion, then Hillary’s political positions would end up being an entire attack on Catholicism as well. That Catholicism is eating itself from the inside is obvious as well but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. (Note: abortion is considered as “direct abortion” in terms of canon law.) The basic point is that in terms of moral theological and philosophical considerations, abortion is considered by many to be an act of murder. Essentially, Hillary’s attack on Trump starts off with the premise already that “abortion is not murder” which has yet remained an unproven statement. Essentially, Trump is not merely saying “women who procure an abortion should be punished” but rather “women who deliberately terminate a pregnancy by killing the fetus should be held the same as murderers”. Each individual case should follow due process of course with weighing in of the circumstances but to insist this is an attack on “women’s rights” doesn’t really prove anything about how the candidate views women.
Next, she uses statements that the polygynist has made from his beauty pageant managements. I’m just going to be frank here–to insist these statements are an “attack on women” is nonsense. Beauty pageants are governed by a certain measurement of what is considered “beautiful” by the judges. I’m certain Hillary is aware of the expression that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Rather than this being Trump’s “attack on women”, this is rather Hillary’s “attack on beauty pageants”. Note that there are actually several different types of beauty pageants as well with differing measurements of beauty as well. The particular pageants of Trump’s have these standards of beauty. All his statements prove is that he is a stickler for rules.