MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?

It is not a trick question, no matter how many times you bold or italicize or underline various portions.

If abortion is a crime or if abortion is murder, the law does have to mete out consequences for breaking those laws. If you listen closely, Matthews says, "Ten years or ten cents or what?" by which he meant would it be fines or jail time. Then Trump fell into his trap as Matthews said "For the woman?". And the trap snapped shut.

You really should consider why you're supporting a candidate that can be so easily tricked by Tingly Chris because he isn't that smart. Chrissy led him like a lamb to slaughter while deflecting Trump's jabs that Chrissy was a bad Catholic.

You're a complete moron.

You have slandered everyone in this forum. Do you remember what Jesus said about calling someone a fool?

They don't focus on prosecuting women who had an abortion

They don't focus on prosecuting men who perform abortions either

You have slandered everyone in this forum.

Just the ones who have humiliated him in debate.

Oh, wait, that would be pretty much everyone in the forum, wouldn't it?

You have slandered everyone in this forum. Do you remember what Jesus said about calling someone a fool?

I didn't call anyone a fool. I did point out a moron (or two).

Maybe you could post some animated GIFs. Then you could finally feel like a winner.

All you have left is namecalling?

What name was called?

"That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on."

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context. Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.

"What shocks me is how many people here at LF just don't get what what it was that Trump said."

What shocks me is how many people here at LF refuse to recognize what Trump said.

Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished?

Well, hell. If that's the way the law is written, of course.

Answer me this, smartass. If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?

Tomorrow's Headline: "Too Conservative Trashes First Amendment!"

"What name was called?"

The one on the right is calling my name.

Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished?

I don't see how it was ridiculous.

Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted.

The proper answer for Trump, the only answer, is "women have never been prosecuted for abortion and they will not be, no matter what Congress or the Court does with Roe v. Wade".

No anti-abortion law has ever punished a woman (unless she was the abortionist). That was Matthews' gotcha question. And Trump fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Because he actually does have the liberal pro-abortion view of the entire issue, just like Matthews does: back-alley abortions, women being prosecuted, etc.

You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs.

Recall what happened to Giuliani, cruising along at 65% approval nationally, in 2008 after he said he would pay for his daughter's abortion? It was like a balloon popping. This would be comparable to that in the damage it does. Giuliani only hurt himself as a candidate whereas Trump hurt the entire pro-life cause by giving the abortion mills a major propaganda victory.

They don't focus on prosecuting men who perform abortions either

They do.

The Pro-Life movement and State conservative leaning governments have been very successful in shutting down abortion providers:

The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic

Shut down

Where the pro-abort fed.gov and her Whore of Babylon SCOTUS shoot down repeal of Roe v. Wade, state governments have taken to what amounts to an operational envelopment to abortion providers.

Abortion clinics are closing in the U.S. at a record pace. In five states — Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming — just one remains. American women were having fewer abortions before clinic closings accelerated in the last couple of years. So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates. But the new strategy adopted by abortion opponents, and the court battles it has set off, have tested how far abortion rights can be limited without being overturned.

"The Texas law requires that clinics meet hospital-like surgical standards and that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals."

How is that "prosecuting men"?

So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates.

It's the effect of Plan 9 and morning-after massive doses of birth control.

The trend will only accelerate as it becomes standard practice for the younger generation. At present, abortion is mostly for women too dumb or complacent to use the emergency contraceptives.

"Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted."

Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished? Why would Matthews even ask the question? Why? Because in his hypothetical, it was illegal for the woman to have an abortion.

"You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs."

If they're offended, then they were just waiting for any stupid excuse to be offended.

If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?

If posting on LF is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished?

You're confusing him.

How is that "prosecuting men"?

Shutting down the clinics is shutting down the providers.

Women were never punished for abortion.

Source never available on request.

Shutting down the clinics is shutting down the providers.

And shutting down their clients.

Again, how are higher facility standards "prosecuting men"?

Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished?

Because it is a favorite shibboleth of the Left and always has been.

That was the trap and Trump fell right into it, thinking he was clever by trying to counter that Chrissy was a bad Catholic. Which is beside the point. No matter how much Trump might demonstrate factually that Chrissy is a bad Catholic, it doesn't change the major propaganda victory that Chrissy scored against Trump.

And Trump's answer does indicate that he shares that same exact worldview of the results of outlawing abortion. You might not see that but, believe me, the established pro-lifers noticed it.

Source never available on request.

Your ignorance is your own fault. And it is not my problem.

Again, how are higher facility standards "prosecuting men"?

Currently you cannot by law prosecute an abortion provider.

By shutting down their clinics you shut down the provider.

If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?

"No."

The proper answer is that the feds would close it down entirely and go after Stone. Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize.

In the same way, when outlawing abortion, you'd go after the abortionists and their clinics (also the ob/gyn's who quietly perform abortions in their regular medical offices for their own clients which is not uncommon). We never went after women before Roe either, only the abortionist.

There is well over a century of history of this policy. Try reading a little so you won't be as ignorant as your man-crush.

Women were never punished for abortion.

Source never available on request.

It's a true statement. Those providing the illegal service before Roe were prosecuted and the woman was not.

Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance.

Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim.

"Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize."

I agree. Unfortunately, that wasn't my question. I asked if posters to LP should be punished if posting on LP was illegal.

You answered "no", making you an anti-law-and-order anarchist. I guess you only obey the laws you like? Should we all do that?

I asked if posters to LP should be punished if posting on LP was illegal.

You answered "no", making you an anti-law-and-order anarchist.

It doesn't at all, no matter how desperate you are to defend your ridiculous and ignorant candidate putting his foot in his mouth and giving the Left a yuuge propaganda victory, one comparable to Todd Akin and his "legimately raped" comment.

More than that, I am aware of how the government does go about shutting down forums and websites. And they always go after the owner/operator of the site, almost never go after the individual posters as long as they are not pursuing illegal activities on that forum. You can see this will Silk Road and other Dark Web sites and other sites dealing in black market goods.

You can't erase Trump's blunder to an easily avoided question. You can't excuse his complete ignorance about the history of abortion policy because every other candidate we have does know the correct answer.

At some point, they'll have some trick questions for Trump on guns as well. And those will likely work too. That is because Trump is ignorant and lazy and won't hire proper professionals to brief and drill him on these inevitable gotcha traps the libmedia will set for him.

I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way. He hasn't called Chrissy any names, talked about blood spurting out of him, etc. Yet he still has an ongoing blood feud vendetta with Megyn Kelly.

I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way.

All Donald Dollar had to do to fluster Tingles, in the way Jon Stewart did, was to ask him the since he posed a hypothetical question about the illegality of abortion he, Tingles, needs to be more specific and define exactly what crime by the new law would then be committed if an abortion was performed. Would it be a civil or criminal offense? Would it be a misdemeanor or homicide? Would it be a Federal or a State crime or both?

Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary?

Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance.

Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim.

This flies in the face of all logic and reason behind the foundation of our laws.

If I hire someone to kill my spouse because she became ill or was an physical or emotional inconvenience/hardship to me or it was a shotgun wedding would I be the victim when the hit man fulfilled the contract? Would I be free of any legal consequences?

The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach.

The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach.

You fail to think it through.

If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

So you'd have 40-50 million women liable for murder charges.

As a practical matter of politics, you can't make women the murderers. You have to go after the person who performed the abortion.

Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary?

Actually, he's just a run-of-the-mill liberal NYC Democrat and has all the attitudes on public policy that you would expect. That is what the Chrissy interview showed us.

Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.

That's whiny bullshit - what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw, and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?

"and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?"

That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.

If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.

Art. 1 § 9 and Art. 1 § 10.

Your ignorance is like a bottomless well.

That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.

That might be as much as half an answer; to repeat, what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion.

A) We don't agree. And B) I listed many other issues which you failed to post.

Don't do that again.

Don't do that again.

What a bossy little sniper you are.

Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted.

The proper answer for Trump, the only answer, is "women have never been prosecuted for abortion and they will not be, no matter what Congress or the Court does with Roe v. Wade".

This claim appears overly broad. In today's world, where the woman can take a pill to induce a miscarriage/abortion, women can and have been prosecuted and sent to prison.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/02/it-isnt-justice-for-purvi-patel-to-serve-20-years-in-prison-for-an-abortion?CMP=fb_gu

It isn't justice for Purvi Patel to serve 20 years in prison for an abortion

When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive

Jessica Valenti
April 2, 2015
The Guardian

Abortion is illegal in the United States. So is having a stillbirth – not officially, perhaps, but thanks to a case in Indiana, we’re halfway there. On Monday, Purvi Patel, a 33 year old woman who says that she had a miscarriage, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for neglect of a dependent and feticide. She is the first woman in the United States to ever be sentenced for such a crime.

In July 2013, Patel went to the emergency room with heavy bleeding. She eventually admitted to miscarrying a stillborn fetus and placing it in a bag in a dumpster. (Patel lived with her religiously conservative parents who did not believe in premarital sex.) After police searched Patel’s cellphone, they found text messages that suggested she bought abortion-inducing drugs online.

Despite the fact that no traces of any abortifacent were found in Patel’s blood work taken at the hospital, the prosecution argued that she had taken the drugs mentioned in her text messages and caused her miscarriage at 23-24 weeks of pregnancy. And, in legal maneuvering that defies imagination, Patel was charged not just with fetal homicide, but with neglecting a child. As the Guardian reported last year, these charges are completely contradictory: neglecting a child means that you neglected a live child, and feticide means that the baby was born dead.

But logic has never been at the center of the draconian laws and arrest policies that target pregnant women: control is. As Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told me last year about laws aimed at drug-using pregnant women, this kind of prosecution “is about making pregnant women – from the time an egg is fertilized – subject to state surveillance, control and extreme punishment.”

And, as with other laws that hurt pregnant women, Indiana’s feticide law was not intended (explicitly, anyway) to be a policy that affected women: it was supposedly designed to target illegal abortion providers. But despite the anti-choice insistence that women are “victims” of abortion providers, the history of how similar laws are used show just how much it’s women – and women of color in particular – who are directly impacted by “fetal protection” policies.

After a feticide law was passed in Texas in 2003, for example, a local district attorney used the opportunity to send a letter to all doctors in her county that they were now legally required to report any pregnant women using drugs. Doctors complied, and and more than 50 women were reported and charged with crimes.

We may never know what really happened in Patel’s case. She has repeatedly said that she had a miscarriage which, if true, means that the state is sending a woman to jail for not having a healthy pregnancy outcome. But even if Patel did procure and take drugs to end her pregnancy, are we really prepared to send women to jail for decades if they have abortions? Even illegal ones?

When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive: women need better access to education, affordable contraception and abortion without harassment or delay.

Patel’s case opens the door for any woman who expresses doubt about her pregnancy to be charged if she miscarries or has a stillbirth. It’s a terrifying thought, but one that is already impacting real women: the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during their pregnancies. So tell me again how abortion is totally legal. Or tell Purvi Patel.

what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion.

No, that's your functional illiteracy at work; I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion" - that's your functional illiteracy at work again.

"What a bossy little sniper you are."

I got standards.

"I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.

"And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion"

That's what you said in post #175: "The(n) we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."

Post #150 was about abortion only.

In July 2013, Patel went to the emergency room with heavy bleeding.

Hard cases do make bad law.

I don't think you've established some uniform jurisprudence that is operating completely outside the traditional laws.

Because we have so many states and jurisdictions, there will always be some minor variations.

So I won't overread this one case. And it seems to me there are still opportunities for her to prevail on appeal or receive a pardon or commutation.

I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.

By retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I explicitly showed that you did not see it as the "only issue".

Post #150 was about abortion only.

It was about whether abortion is "a burning issue in 2016" - "burning" is not "only".

Look into a remedial reading course.

If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.

I thought it through quite well. You fail to understand the question which is what crime would the new law specify is committed when an illegal abortion is had. Even if it's homicide there are some that are considered justifiable. There are also questions of Due Process.

But before even that the new law must specific the nature of the unborn fetus. Is it a person or not? If not the nature of the crime would likely be civil or if criminal a misdemeanor and all previous violations grandfathered out of consequence. If so then there still are options with respect to the crime being a homicide. But if a homicide there would likely be spelled out what circumstances would be considered justifiable. This would require a finding of facts that would no longer be possible to litigate for the 50 +/- million prior abortions thus render your objection mute.

Think more on this and you will find that I am correct that it all depends on the nature of the victim and of the circumstances of the crime and that pre-law violations present no issue.

the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during their pregnancies.

First it's the Pro-Life movement that you Pro-Death supporters oppose.

Second, I guess it's OK with you Pro-Deathers for a women to knowingly abuse the fetus and bring it term, oh say like a crack addict.

This is an incredibly complex issue, especially if science someday conclusively proves that an unborn fetus is a human being and the courts are compelled by honesty and integrity to recognize that an unborn fetus is a person subject to the protections of the Constitution.

What we have now is a hodge-podge of different determinations varying from state to state. It's not only stupid but immoral. For example, what makes an unborn fetus killed in a car accident or commission of a crime against the mother (to you Pro-Deathers she technically is not a mother yet) have due consideration and/or standing in a court in some states and in not others?

Geez, fair and balance you are not. I am not even sure that you are capable of rational thinking on this subject.

If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.

Good. Murderers should be punished. You pro abortion people are stupid would be murderers.

if science someday conclusively proves that an unborn fetus is a human being

That has been known since the beginning. Only an evil person or a liar would deny it. Ok stupid people too.

The proper answer is that the feds would close it down entirely and go after Stone. Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize.

In the same way, when outlawing abortion, you'd go after the abortionists and their clinics (also the ob/gyn's who quietly perform abortions in their regular medical offices for their own clients which is not uncommon). We never went after women before Roe either, only the abortionist.

There is well over a century of history of this policy. Try reading a little so you won't be as ignorant as your man-crush.

That is the position of Satan.

You pro abortion people are stupid would be murderers.

One idiot says I am a pro-lifer, you, another idiot, claim I am pro-choice. One of you are wrong. LMAO.