"NO": The Second Part of Trump's Answer That Got Audible Gasps From the Audience

[malthaussen]

19. Shouldn't "shocking" imply something that is unexpected?

"Horrifying" might be more appropriate. But I suppose "shocking" could apply, if one really is not in tune with how despicable the women-haters really are. I suppose that people of more-or-less good will simply cannot imagine the full depths of depravity to which true oppressors sink. There's a tendency to shy away from the reality, because it is too awful to bear. In a patriarchal society, control of women is the highest priority, exceeding even race hatred or religious bigotry (although the latter usually reinforces the patriarchy).

The woman who has an abortion is committing the highest crime possible under this system: not killing a fetus, but daring to assert that she has a right to her own physical integrity. When the nature of the offense is understood, of course it follows that the male who contributed to the pregnancy is not only not culpable, but has actually been offended against (since his power has been defied). It also follows that the person or institution who administers the abortion is culpable, again, not because it has destroyed a fetus, but because it has abetted the woman in asserting her independence. It's not a hard concept to understand.

-- Mal