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.

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 wasn't directed at you.

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

That has been known since the beginning.

If that were the case SCOTUS could never have decided RvW as it did. The science is absolutely unsettled on the question as when life beings. And it's likely that it never will have a definitive answer.

It may be true that the scientific consensus is that life does begin at conception (but that there is such consensus is itself contested) there is no such scientific consensus on when personhood begins. The latter is a legal matter.

"The problem has never been "we can't kill it because it is alive". It's "we can't kill it because it is a human being.""

The more intractable problem is that the U.S. Constitution never refers to human beings. It clearly refers to citizens and to persons. And while it clearly defines citizen it has no definition of person. Logic says that a person is a human being and vice versa. But SCOTUS said that a fetus is not a person. In doing so did SCOTUS state that a human being is not person? Did SCOTUS ignore science?

It is undeniable that no-one knows for sure what the Founding Fathers thought about the fetus, personhood, abortion as may be expressed in the Constitution. If anything they probably never considered the question of what constitute a person as is referred to in the Constitution. It is clear that the Constitution say that to be a citizen one must be born. It says nothing about what constitutes a person.

The reality is probably the FFs never thought to address the issue. It appears that abortion was accepted in ancient Rome and Greece.

"The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female.

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

England

English Common Law agreed that abortion was a crime after 'quickening' - but the seriousness of that crime was different at different times in history.

In 1803 {N.B. - long after the U.S. Constitution was adopted} English Statute Law made abortion after quickening a crime that earned the death penalty, but a less serious crime before that.

America

Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Laws specifically against abortion became widespread in America in the second half of the 1800 s {N.B. - long after the U.S. Constitution was adopted}, and by 1900 abortion was illegal everywhere in the USA, except in order to save the life of the mother."

It should be abundantly clear that in the 17 and 18 hundreds there was never any consideration of the status of fetus that was being destroyed. Did most, or even any, of these people believe that life began at conception and therefore the unborn fetus was subject to the same legal protections and benefits of those that were born? It clearly seems not to be the case.

Science clearly has not definitively settled the question when RvW was decided. In fact the majority opinion supported the contention that a fetus was not a person, at least for the purpose of the 14th Amendment.

You need to take you emotional and religious beliefs out of the facts of what the scientific community does and does not support on this subject. Neither of us may like it but we cannot ignore it.

"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."

How can any scientist say that a fetus is a person at 270 days, but not at 269 days? Or 268 days? And so forth.

I think society and/or the courts will make that determination.

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

So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one. Do you know what "explicit" means?

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

No. But when only abortion is mentioned, then abortion is "only".

Do you know what "explicit" means?

Things getting confusing for him if there is more that two syllables.

So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one. [...] But when only abortion is mentioned, then abortion is "only".

The existence of more than one issue is a given; are you really this obtuse, or are you hoping your fellow LFers are?

"The existence of more than one issue is a given"

Then it would be "implicit".

Moot point. If the poster meant to refer to more than one issue he wouldn't have singled out just one.

How can any scientist say that a fetus is a person at 270 days, but not at 269 days? Or 268 days? And so forth.

I think society and/or the courts will make that determination.

Yes, I have said as much. As for now SCOTUS decided that a fetus is not a person as applies to the 14th Amendment.

If the poster meant to refer to more than one issue he wouldn't have singled out just one.

The poster referred to WHETHER that one issue WAS A "BURNING" ONE FOR 2016, as you had denied. If anyone "singled out" the issue it was YOU in your post (#147) to which he replied.

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

So by mentioning only one issue, you "explicitly showed" more than one.

The existence of more than one issue is a given

Then it would be "implicit".

Even if you were right*, it remains the case that by retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I showed that you did not see it as the "only issue" - so I clearly did not, as you claimed, draw the conclusion "That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion."

(*Which you aren't; the existence of other issues is implicit, which means that when you say "abortion is important" you have explicitly said you don't see it as the "only issue in contention". One doesn't need to state every relevant premise in order to have been explicit.)

One doesn't need to state every relevant premise in order to have been explicit

Source please. (And wash you hand after extracting it.)

The excluded middle says the implicit is explicit?

Look into a remedial reading course.

remedial reading

The excluded middle says the implicit is explicit?

Source please.

Nobody said or implied it did.

I see. You were just babbling.

I see.

Wrong as usual.

anus

project