If a state makes abortion illegal, it means no one is allowed to perform them in that state. If a doctor performs an illegal abortion, the doctor is charged (as he would be if he engaged in assisted suicide).

Trump: If abortion is banned, there has to be some form of punishment for women who do it

Trump is absolutely correct. If, and the word is IF, an act is made a serious disregard or affront to the law, the act must be punished or there is no law. That's a secondary consequence that must by considered when passing a law.

pro abortion faggot lover who wants open borders

The answer is, turn the abortion decision over to each state.

But if you do that, then Trump can't punish them for having abortions.

Indeed.

It is committing the abortion that is punishable.

The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).

This has been the dogma of the pro-lifers for decades, something only an ignoramus panderer like Trump would not know. That is because he is -- as he always was -- an advocate for all abortions, including partial-birth abortion, having praised his own sister for the NJ abortion decision she issued as a federal judge.

"But if you do that, then Trump can't punish them for having abortions."

Matthews never said what the law was. His question was essentially, "If abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law should she be punished?"

Trump responded that if she has a back-alley abortion, she should be punished. It was a bad answer to a bad question.

Making abortion illegal means doctors are not allowed to perform them. As to whether or not the woman should also be punished, what does the law say?

"That's a secondary consequence that must by considered when passing a law."

Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"

The law could read that no one is allowed to perform an abortion. Those who do are punished according to the law. Whether or not the woman is also punished is subject to the law.

The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).

WTF are you talking about?

The doctor doesn't perform the abortion unless the woman comes and HIRES HIM to murder her child.

The woman is the greater criminal by far, and should be punished for it.

She WILL be punished for it, in the afterlife, but she should be punished for murder in THIS life, obviously.

The doctor doesn't perform the abortion unless the woman comes and HIRES HIM to murder her child.

So you consider abortion to be murder-for-hire and the woman should be executed as a first-degree murderer and the abortionist would face a long prison sentence as a mere accomplice?

This has been the dogma of the pro-lifers for decades, something only an ignoramus panderer like Trump would not know.

If THAT really IS "pro-life dogma", then no wonder pro-lifers have failed at everything. They're dumb as dogshit.

I am pro-life, and MY position is not so limp and stupid.

Abortion happens because woman want to murder their unwanted children.

The WOMEN are monsters and murderesses. The abortion doctors are the evil creep hitmen.

They're both evil, and they both deserve to be put to death for murdering children.

Abortion doesn't happen without an evil murderous bitch ordering it. The women are BY FAR the greater and worse cause, and BY FAR bear the greatest guilt. For the abortion doctor didn't go out and decide to murder another human being to be able to have orgasms without consequence.

So you consider abortion to be murder-for-hire and the woman should be executed as a first-degree murderer and the abortionist would face a long prison sentence as a mere accomplice?

Execute them both. The abortionist commits a murder, the woman also commits the murder. They're both assassins, and they both deserve death and Hell.

Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"

But that isn't what he said.

The Dims will promptly launch a campaign against him like the one against Todd Akin. All that Akin said was that women who are "legitimately" raped rarely get pregnant. Trump went much further than that.

And the Dims will tar every Republican with the same brush, the usual War On Women garbage.

I am pro-life, and MY position is not so limp and stupid.

I don't think there is a pro-life group in the country that would want you as a member, let alone a leader.

"not the woman who is a victim of abortion"

The victim? Are you saying the abortion was performed without her consent?

Isn't killing a baby murder? If I shot a pregnant woman and killed her baby, I would be charged with murder. So if she allows a doctor to perform this murder, isn't she equally to blame?

Yes Yes.

You sound kinda desperate.

You see it all slipping away, I think. We've seen this movie before.

You're turning out to be an asshole.

I'll leave all the expert Trumpsplaining in your hands.

On most topics, I think Trump has pretty good political instincts. But this? Why the hell did he get involved on this? Stupid! I do not see where he gained anything. Really stupid!

There are times when Trump shows evidence of not having considered things very comprehinsively or not having thought ahead. In some areas he lacks depth.

Go tell God women should be able to kill their kids and get off scott free.

You're turning out to be an asshole.

Well, there certainly are some assholes on this thread. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide who they are.

"But that isn't what he said."

Correct. He responded poorly to a poorly phrased hypothetical. He later clarified his position.

Time to move on.

Or just date it correctly. Like not during ovulation, or not a week before it, ect

You don't think a woman who kills her kid has commited a sin.

Don't ever claim to be pro life. You're not conservative either.

too means also.

That means you have a couple of conservative positions. Everything else is libertariantard.

So you support abortion, Heroin. You don't support closing the border. You say that faggot lover Johnson is conservative because he is for abortion and fag pretend marriage.

You're out of the closet geezer.

He made no mention at all of punishing the abortionist. None.

Would you guys care to Trumpsplain that to us?

The fact that you refuse to answer it tells me what I need to know about your position.

I was just feeding you some rope.

Your problem isn't me. It's your cult leader, The Donald.

"Would you guys care to Trumpsplain that to us?"

Sure. At that point, they were talking about the woman having a back-alley abortion. Matthews asked if she should be punished for that that. Trump said yes.

Trump corrected that later and said she shouldn't. End of story.

He made no mention at all of punishing the abortionist. None.

You should be punished. I agree.

He responded poorly to a poorly phrased hypothetical. He later clarified his position.

It wasn't poorly phrased or a hypothetical. It was a direct yes-or-no question.

And Trump answered YES, women must be punished for abortion.

Go back up and look at the interview again. Did you even watch it?

You should be punished. I agree.

You like to whip yourself up into a fury of false accusations if someone says something you disagree with.

Oh, yeah, and Free Sneaky.

"Your problem isn't me."

My problem IS you and people like you. Trump corrects his mistake and, like a dog gnawing on a bone, you just won't quit the criticism.

I don't think there is a pro-life group in the country that would want you as a member, let alone a leader.

The Catholic Church is pretty pro-life. They have me. But guess what, I can't become one of THEIR leaders, because in the end I prefer sex and childbearing with a woman than being a eunuch for God - and that means that I don't get to be a leader in that institution. Only those who sacrifice their sexual lives to follow Christ wholly get to be.

You don't like that. But it acts as a very effective barrier to those of us who are fleshly enough to prefer the carnal company of the opposite sex over a life of prayer, and who are therefore likely to favor our families - as we would be expected.

There are very few Catholic parents who would obey God if they were in the position of Abraham, asked to sacrifice their son. They would say "No, Lord, I will not." Or they would say "You are not really God - you are a demon to demand such a thing!" I know I would.

And therefore, the fact of celibacy MEANS that Catholic parents and spouses aren't put in the position of having to choose between God and family. The rule avoids it.

So, I AM already a part of the world's largest and most consistent pro-life organization. They're happy to have me as a member. And no, I will never be in any position of leadership, and shouldn't be. And it is all designed that way, quite wisely I believe.

People like you don't understand us.

You're a pro abortion faggot lover

Your views are firmly in line with those of radical muslims.

Saudi government ‘wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'

You may just get this with Trump as president.

And Trump answered YES, women must be punished for abortion.

GOOD! He's RIGHT.

Saudi government ‘wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'

You may just get this with Trump as president.

No way. Trump doesn't care about the gays. He lives in NYC, a very tolerant place. He's tolerant. I am too.

Baby murder is a different thing altogether. No sane person should tolerate baby murderers walking around in our midst. Abortion needs to be stopped, and those hellbent on murder anyway should be dispatched to hell where they belong.

Men who want to bugger men? Seriously, do you really care? I don't. God does. He'll take care of that. I DO care about people killing other people, though. And babies are people.

You're a pro abortion faggot lover Your views are firmly in line with those of radical muslims.

Let the record show that Decktard thinks that it is ok to murder babies and the mother shouldn't be punished.

You are the one who is in line with Muslims.

They think the same as you do about the great country the United States of America.

Why shouldn't someone who kills their kid be punished.

So Decard thinks you can drown your kid in a bath tub and you shouldn't be punished for it. That is sick decktard.

My problem IS you and people like you. Trump corrects his mistake and, like a dog gnawing on a bone, you just won't quit the criticism.

You've got much bigger problems than being offended that someone makes a few posts on an obscure forum with 20 active posters.

Seriously, do you really care? I don't.

Did you teach that to your kids? Hopefully not.

Well he ended up saying NO. so he changed his mind. Hmmm

Don't worry, he'll change his mind as often as he likes.

And he can just as easily change his mind once he's president too.

You've got much bigger problems than being offended that someone makes a few posts on an obscure forum with 20 active posters.

19 I got rid of sneak a peter.

"It wasn't poorly phrased or a hypothetical."

Sure it was. All Matthews said was that "abortion is illegal". What does that mean? Does that mean "If a woman has an abortion she is breaking the law"?

If so, doesn't it follow that a woman be punished if she breaks the law?

"And Trump answered YES, women must be punished for abortion."

Within hours he corrected that and said no. Did you read it? Are people not allowed to correct their mistakes?

Let the record show that Decktard thinks that it is ok to murder babies and the mother shouldn't be punished.

Please post one link to where I ever said it was OK to murder babies.

What, you mean you can't find one single instance?

Then shut your dick-holster you lying POS.

You are the one who is in line with Muslims.

I'm not the one who wants to kill the faggots.

So Decard thinks you can drown your kid in a bath tub and you shouldn't be punished for it.

More lies.

Typical insanity from the site owner.

"Well he ended up saying NO. so he changed his mind. Hmmm "

But he can't do that! He can't! He can't! He can't!

He said yes. Did you hear him? He said yes. He can't change his mind. He's not allowed. He said yes.

Crucify him for saying yes. Stone him! Didn't you hear him say yes? Oh, we got him now. He said yes. Wanna hear the YouTube? I've got the YouTube where he said yes. Wanna hear it?

So Decard thinks you can drown your kid in a bath tub and you shouldn't be punished for it.

More lies.

Typical insanity from the site owner.

Murder is murder. No matter how you do it.

You support murder.

Or you sure made it sound like you did with your abortion muslim comment.

So unless you're saying your views are in line with radical muslims. It is a legitimate conclusion.

ou're a pro abortion faggot lover

Post ONE LINK that backs up your spurious claims.

The fact is that you can't.

That makes you a liar.

I just don't want to join you in waging a jihad on "faggots".

Would you guys care to Trumpsplain that to us?

My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.

Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?

You are the one who is in line with Muslims.

Muslims are pretty strictly anti-abortion. I know of no pro-abortion Muslims. None.

You support murder.

If there was a way to determine that an unborn child will be homosexual, would you be in favor of aborting that child?

I don't agree with gay marriage but I don't support murdering anyone.

I support the death penalty for abortion.

If it is a life then it is murder. That is science.

You sound like you come from the dark ages.

If there was a way to determine that an unborn child will be homosexual, would you be in favor of aborting that child?

That is a stupid question. No on is born queer.

Muslims are pretty strictly anti-abortion. I know of no pro-abortion Muslims.

Don't confuse him with facts - he's on a roll.

My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.

Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?

Won't you have to go after the bank or credit card company that paid for the transaction as well?

We're gonna need a lot more execution chambers.

Muslims are pretty strictly anti-abortion. I know of no pro-abortion Muslims. None.

Well you have to respect that about them. They get something right.

Well you have to respect that about them. They get something right.

Along with the faggot killing too, right?

Within hours he corrected that and said no. Did you read it? Are people not allowed to correct their mistakes?

And what if he decides to correct his "mistake" of being pro-life 4 hours after he is sworn in as prez? You'll be okay with that too?

"I'm confused. He just said no that's all. I don't know why he said no right after."

Trump came out with a written statement clarifying his position. I would think that would settle the issue.

But Too Conservative doesn't want to let it go.

Along with the faggot killing too, right?

Wrong.

And what if he decides to correct his "mistake" of being pro-life 4 hours after he is sworn in as prez? You'll be okay with that too?

There you go making stuff up again.

There you go making stuff up again.

Not at all.

Trump just flipped from punish-the-woman to punish-the-abortionist in less than 4 hours. He has a track record of major flipflopping on this and many other issues.

You just don't like it when someone notices this and points it out.

"And what if he decides to correct his "mistake" of being pro-life 4 hours after he is sworn in as prez?"

Are you concerned that he might?

All right. I'll play your stupid game. What if he did? He calls a press conference and says he's pro-choice. What changes? Nothing.

Obama was pro-choice. What changed? Nothing.

Hey, Bush was pro-life. What changed? Nothing.

Take your "issue" and slink away. Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.

Trump 2016

Ok, I'll admit it I can be an asshole too.

I dish it out to you and you take it.

I guess you're ok.

We're all just passionate about our beliefs.

Oh well.

Take your "issue" and slink away. Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.

All the president has to do is start prosecuting.

They do have the power.

Appoint a pit bull pro life attorney general.

Is abortion murder?

WAT DO U THINK OF MR TRUMP CHANGING HIS MIND?????

He didn't. He changed what he said in haste, to make it more reasonable-sounding.

Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.

The next President will have that power.

There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Three of the sitting justices, two liberal Democrats and the most liberal Republican, are over 80.

If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes. He can assure that the justice by applying a LITMUS TEST to each nominee. Democrats do. Republicans can.

No appointments to the Supreme Court who are not passionate pro-lifers.

So, if Scalia is replaced with a passionate pro-lifer, what do you have?

You have Thomas, who is pro-life. You have Alito, who is probably pro-life. You have Kennedy, who is not, but who is over 80. And you have Roberts, who is a treasonous crapweasel we can assume is not pro-life. that will make three pro-lifers on the court, one of them certain.

Ginsburg, Breyer or Kennedy will go next, either in death, or retirement. Litmus tedst. Now you have two certain pro-lifers (the new one and the Scalia replacement), and two probably (Thomas and Alito).

We know that Roberts can be bought and turned by pressure, and at that point, he'll be on a Republican court in a Republican-run country. He may decide to move back. There's your five.

But if not, then the next of the aged trio goes, and one more sure pro-life vote comes on. Now you have three certains, two probables and Roberts. That's 6-3.

The last of the aged fogeys goes. Litmus test. Now you have FOUR certains, two probables, and Roberts. 7-2.

That pretty much guarantees Roe is overturned during the next President's two terms, if the President is Trump, and if he applies a litmus test.

The President can control this process because of the ages and states of health of three ancient supremes, plus a vacancy.

My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.

Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?

Of course.

And what if he decides to correct his "mistake" of being pro-life 4 hours after he is sworn in as prez?

Then he'll be like every other fucking Republican since Nixon, won't he?

If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes.

Hopefully Trump delivers. It isn't a sure thing. You know that right?

You know he's a joke. Why do you keep up this silly pretense?

Who works harder you or Trump?

I say Trump does. You sit and play on the internet. Trump does things like build sky scrapers. Businesses.

It is a joke that you think he is a joke. You're not being honest. Another lie.

It is ok to disagree. But why do you have to make stuff up/lie?

I do not see where he gained anything. Really stupid!

I'm trying to think of that Vermont guy that was crucified a number of years ago.

It wasn't Sanders. I guess I'll look it up now.

Howard Dean...the media made him out to be a lunatic with his maniacal laugh at a rally. Look it up.

This could be Trump's moment now.

The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).

I understand the pro life position politically. However rlk is correct legally and logically.

If I paid you to off someone you would be clearly the murderer and I would be guilty of conspiracy to murder or complicit.

A woman seeks out an abortionist to kill her child. That is the first law violated if Roe overturned. The second law broken by the woman would be obtaining an illegal medical procedure.

Now there are many cases where a battered woman hired another to kill the battering husband. Some of those women are not convicted due to mental and physical trauma.

However logically Trump is accurate. If a woman seeks an illegal abortion then she is involved in premeditated murder.

You know he's a joke. Why do you keep up this silly pretense?

There is no pretense. I do not think Trump is a joke. I think he's the real deal.

Remember, when I said this before you pointed out that you had really lost respect for my intelligence because I said that.

Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.

Trump is the only Republican for whom I can vote.

Hopefully Trump delivers. It isn't a sure thing. You know that right?

In this life, nothing is sure but death and taxes, but I think Trump will deliver. I'm sure that none of the other Republicans will deliver anything I want.

I'm sure that Hillary and Bernie will deliver for their side.

his could be Trump's moment now.

It could be, but it isn't.

The Republicans keep looking for a deus ex machina to save them from the big bad Trump. There will be none, and in retrospect they'll be happy Trump won.

Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.

Well Elvis has just re-entered the building again.

"Trump is the only Republican for whom I can vote."

That's because Trump is no REP, in this regard he is just like Ron Paul. Given that you hate the REP Party it comes as no surprise that you still will not vote for one.

Trump is absolutely correct. If, and the word is IF, an act is made a serious disregard or affront to the law,

Then why did Trump go into full reverse mode in just a couple of hours after he made the comment?

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

Trump is absolutely correct. If, and the word is IF, an act is made a serious disregard or affront to the law,

Then why did Trump go into full reverse mode in just a couple of hours after he made the comment?

Send me a message of celebration when you learn how to read.

Then why did Trump go into full reverse mode in just a couple of hours after he made the comment?

Send me a message of celebration when you learn how to read.

Send me a message when you get some understanding of the language. It is very simple for all but the simple minded. Trump reverse himself on this very legitimate question about a very contentious issue in less than a few hours once he saw how he sh*t hit the fan. What courage of his convictions this con artist has, eh? The man has, and always did have, flexible principles. He changes his position as lest as often as you change your underwear.

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

"GREEN BAY, Wisconsin — After saying on Wednesday that he believes there should be punishment for women who undergo abortions if the procedure was outlawed, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump walked back the comment hours later.

In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the GOP front-runner described himself multiple times as "pro-life" but struggled to define what the legal ramifications of that position should be. When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban, Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

Later in the day, his campaign released a statement refocusing who would be punished should abortion become illegal. "If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," the statement said. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."

HINT: The weak kneed con man screwed the pooch and had to publically eat his words hoping for forgiveness. Hillary has already kicked mud in his face over this (as well as the other REP candidates) and she will continue to sh*t on him and make him bark like a dog.

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

However logically Trump is accurate. If a woman seeks an illegal abortion then she is involved in premeditated murder.

Then why did he flipflop and decide the woman should not be punished in only a few hours?

So did Trump have it right to begin with and now he's punking out to let these millions of women off the hook or is he correct now about the abortionist is the criminal?

Send me a message when you get some understanding of the language.

Please study the employment and interpretation of the conditional syllogism: If A, then B. If, and only if A, then B. Etc. You talk like a man with a wooden asshole.

I'm not sure Trump realizes he has crossed the pro-lifers in a way that deeply offends them. Over the years, I've noticed that offending pro-lifers or pro-gunners in a campaign is almost invariably fatal to a candidate. Giuliani in 2008 was a perfect example of this but far from the only one.

I'm not sure Trump realizes he has crossed the pro-lifers in a way that deeply offends them.

You don't speak for pro life people. You're not.

You don't speak for pro life people.

I don't claim to speak for them.

But I have noticed how they punish any deviation from their policy positions with many other candidates.

Crossing the pro-lifers is generally fatal to a candidate. Trump hadn't crossed them in this campaign until now.

Generally, the pro-lifers remain friendly and open to the idea of even rabidly former pro-abortion candidates like Trump or Giuliani. But one major deviation and they do turn on that new friend. And they have their own entire communications network outside the usual media, all female-dominated. You don't see it coming until it hits your candidate over the head like a 2x4.

We'll see if Trump did offend them deeply. It won't take long for the polls to show it.

"All the president has to do is start prosecuting."

Prosecuting who for what? Are you saying the President has the power to make abortion illegal and can start arresting and prosecuting people?

"If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes."

He can submit his choice to the Senate, but that's about it. If Obama had the power to appoint a Supreme Court justice, Garland would be hearing cases.

"Crossing the pro-lifers is generally fatal to a candidate."

When did he cross them -- when he was for or against punishing women who murder their babies?

Prosecuting who for what? Are you saying the President has the power to make abortion illegal and can start arresting and prosecuting people?

Murderers for murdering. Accessories to murder for accessories for murder. Hitmen for murder.

It is the truth that it is murder.

But I have noticed how they punish any deviation from their policy positions with many other candidates.

100 percent of people who are truly pro life and think abortion is murder would expect to see punishment for the crime of murder.

I'm not talking about fake pro lifers like you appear to be.

When did he cross them -- when he was for or against punishing women who murder their babies?

This particular policy item was hotly debated over the years in the pro-life organizations. Overwhelmingly, they reject any punish-the-woman policy.

In the meantime, the Dims constantly accuse us of wanting to punish the woman even though we have denied it for decades. They still use it as part of their War On Women strategy.

Certainly, the Dims will use this against Trump if he is the nominee but they will also use it against all GOP candidates.

This is why you've never heard any credible GOP candidate ever suggest a punish-the-woman policy. And that is why I think the women who quietly dominate the pro-life movement nationally may react very negatively toward Trump. This argument is long over. Until Trump opened this can of worms by running his big blabbermouth yesterday. Trump's gift to the Lefties and their propaganda. Less remarked upon is Trump mentioning that any change in abortion law would inevitably result in the return of back-alley abortions, yet another pernicious myth that will certainly rile the pro-lifers.

The nicest thing you can say of Trump's remark is he was ignorant. That's not a very positive quality.

If you're looking for signs that Trump has truly riled the pro-lifers, I'd watch for any statements about Trump's remarks by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, the various state and national Right To Life orgs and the newer Susan B. Anthony List activists (the younger generation of pro-life women).

100 percent of people who are truly pro life and think abortion is murder would expect to see punishment for the crime of murder.

Even here, there are only 3 of you. That should give you pause.

I'd be surprised if there are even 100 thousand such voters in the entire country.

Murderers for murdering. Accessories to murder for accessories for murder. Hitmen for murder.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

They cited a position dating back a century that the woman is never to be punished.

It sounds mild enough but that is pretty aggressive for SBA activists.

"Overwhelmingly, they reject any punish-the-woman policy."

I didn't know that. I'd like to know what kind of convoluted thinking leads then to conclude that if a woman pays a doctor to murder her unborn child at her request, he should be sent to prison but she walks away scot-free.

Maybe that's how they keep there membership numbers up. Kind of, "We're pro-life ... but not really".

Ted Cruz does not exhibit the Spirit with his lies.

I have a few grudges against Cruz (that meeting with the persecuted Mideast Christians where he showboated for the Adelson pro-Israel crowd).

Are you saying Cruz is lying on abortion policy?

"The nicest thing you can say of Trump's remark is he was ignorant. That's not a very positive quality."

I'd simply say he was caught off-guard by being asked a hypothetical about an issue everyone considers settled law. It didn't help that Matthews was looking for his gotcha moment, so he phrased the question around whether the woman should be punished.

I've been following politics a long time, and I've never heard this "punish the woman" approach before. Certainly if the abortion decision is turned over to the states, won't each state decide that, not the President?

Yes, Trump should have been prepared for that f**ked up hypothetical but, to his credit, he immediately corrected his position.

"If you're looking for signs that Trump has truly riled the pro-lifers"

Why would they be riled? He retracted his statement.

I've been following politics a long time, and I've never heard this "punish the woman" approach before. Certainly if the abortion decision is turned over to the states, won't each state decide that, not the President?

Yes, Trump should have been prepared for that f**ked up hypothetical but, to his credit, he immediately corrected his position.

I was a vice-president 10 years with the largest state pro-life group in the country. I remember when the issue of who should be punished was hotly debated.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

The proper law is for the mother, the abortion doctor, the attending nurse and the knowing financiers to be treated as first degree murderers, and for those who knowingly drive the victim and his mother to the clinic to be aborted and the billing staff to all be charged with being accessories to murder.

Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.

That would be justice.

Cruz has outright lied regarding his previously supporting amnesty

He was playing Senate procedural games but I didn't see any outright lying or any betrayal of his own campaign promises to the Texas voters.

The proper law is for the mother, the abortion doctor, the attending nurse and the knowing financiers to be treated as first degree murderers, and for those who knowingly drive the victim and his mother to the clinic to be aborted and the billing staff to all be charged with being accessories to murder.

You are an extremist, far outside the Catholic pro-life movement.

Legally, it's similar to someone hiring a hitman to commit a murder.

Legally and ethically.

Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.

Don't expect a reasoned response from the Trump-haters.

He can submit his choice to the Senate, but that's about it. If Obama had the power to appoint a Supreme Court justice, Garland would be hearing cases.

No, there's more to it than that.

If the Senate refuses to hear the cases, then the President can put the Justice on the Supreme Court, or in the Cabinet Secretary position ANYWAY, as a recess appointment.

The recess appointment has full authority and all powers, s/he's just not permanent. The Senate can then remove the recess appointment by rejecting him/her - which requires the hearings and the votes - but if they don't reject the recess appointment, s/he sits and executes the job until the role is filled by a permanent appointment, or the recess appointment is rejected.

Note that the recess appointment does not cease to sit when the President leaves. S/he sits there until the end of the next Senate calendar year, unless earlier rejected by the Senate or replaced by an approved appointment.

Tradition dictates that cabinet secretaries and recess appointments resign when their President leaves office, but they don't have to. They can force the new President to fire them (if they're cabinet Secretaries), or sit in the job until the Senate rejects them or the new President appoints and get approved by the Senate a new permanent appointment.

So, the Senate can DELAY the appointment of a justice until it is in recess, but the President has the absolute power to fill any vacancies for a year during the Senate recess.

So, if our politics remain in World War I gridlock, and nobody can get approved, the President can enforce his policies through the courts quite effectively by appointing judges who will serve for one year only, and whom he can reappoint each year until the Senate moves.

Likewise, if the Congress is so divided that it can't pass laws, the President can simply rule the country by Executive Order, which only the courts could block - and if s/he controls the court through recess appointments (a recess appointee is much more tightly controlled by the President, because s/he has no lifetime appointment and no guarantee of being renominated, or not being withdrawn, if s/he does not do the President's billing.

The Supreme Court could resist this for awhile, by delaying its calendar. But over time, a President facing an elderly Supreme Court - say, now, could end up having three or four recess appointments sitting on the court, with full power, but serving at the pleasure of the President, who can always withdraw their appointments right up until they are approved.

The Senate can play hardball with delay, but the President can trump the hardball, and if it becomes trench warfare, over time the President will gain effective executive control of the Supreme Court through recess appointments that he can remove from the court himself.

Once the Senate adjourns for the election, Obama will appoint the recess appointment and the Court will have a five-justice Democrat majority for a year, or until the Senate ratifies a new Justice.

The only way the Republicans can win this war is by electing Trump. If they won't. then the Democrats will run the table this time, control the Supreme Court and the Presidency, and enact their entire agenda. Without the judiciary, a divided Congress cannot control the President - and if they try, the Supreme Court can strike down their acts as unconstitutional.

This election is for all the marbles. With Trump, the Republicans can win. If they take him out, the Democrats will be ruling for the rest of our lives.

"I remember when the issue of who should be punished was hotly debated."

Argued, yes. Debated?

I don't see the debate points for excusing the mother. Everything from the beginning to the bloody end is her decision. Not even the biological father has any say-so. Women aren't "victims". Not when they're the ones making all the choices.

Women should at least be honest and say that they're pro-life ... unless they want an abortion.

He was playing Senate procedural games but I didn't see any outright lying or any betrayal of his own campaign promises to the Texas voters.

Bogus! He lied, and he. Has been very loose with the truth when attacking Trump.

Bogus! He lied, and he. Has been very loose with the truth when attacking Trump.

You're not citing any compelling examples.

I think you just prefer Trump so everyone else is a villain.

Cruz lies

Recess appointments are exceptions to the rule.

They will no longer be exceptions if the Congress remains gridlocked.

And he will never be President, so who cares.

The question is whether it will be Trump or a Democrat. That is the choice.

You prefer to see the Democrat.

The question is whether it will be Trump or a Democrat. That is the choice.

I think Trump is a Democrat. Just as Bloomberg was elected NYC mayor as a Republican a few times despite being a lifelong Dem.

Trump is pretty clumsy in pandering to boobs like you. But this is why he prefers uneducated voters.

It did with immigration. It did with the Syrian refugees.

Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged .

Of course. But Trump and LF's Trumpkins can't be bothered to read anything.

The booboisie, following a witless ape riding a gold-plated escalator.

It's the willful ignorance that is so striking. It takes so little time to discover the facts. It isn't like you have to read long dense books to know the history of pro-life reasonably well. But that is too much effort for Trump and the Trumpkins.

I think Trump is a Democrat.

To be a "Democrat" means to be registered with that party.

He's not.

Please study the employment and interpretation of the conditional syllogism: If A, then B. If, and only if A, then B. Etc. You talk like a man with a wooden asshole.

You talk like a man with a wooden head. The if conditions are totally immaterial to the issue. The ifs were present in both of his statements, the first one and then the 180 he did a few hours later. WTF don't you understand about this? He waffled big time and it is costing him big time. He also is dragging down the REP Party and virtually handing all three branches of the Fed government to the DRats. Perhaps you think we will live long and prosper when this happens?

To be a "Democrat" means to be registered with that party.

He's not.

Not since 2009 apparently. However, he has continued his donations to the hard Left Dim pols unabated.

It's obvious to me Cruz is a serial liar. Chris Wallace called him out about his lying.

Wow, an egomaniacal politician a serial liar? Whodathunkit?

I have always believed that anyone that so desperately wants to be elected to high public office should never be given the job. But in practice We The People give it to them anyway.

Matthews never said what the law was. His question was essentially, "If abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law should she be punished?"
-- misterwhite

I'm listening to Rush and he's saying the exact same thing I posted.

Trump heard the question as a law-and-order one, not abortion. And that's the way he answered it.

"Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged."

But that's not what Matthews asked. He said IF abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law, should she be punished?

Should she?

Saudi government ‘wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'

What's interesting about the above is Disney took $1.2 Billion from the House of Saud and they are the largest promoters of the gay agenda.

They took blood money from Muslim oil barons and yet threaten GA with economic sanctions over a religious liberty law.

The woman is as much a victim as the baby . Often the woman is desperate and since she lives in this souless nation ,she doesn't know all the alternatives (including lifestyle choices ) . Many women have deep regrets that affect them the rest of their lives . I'm very suprised that the instinct of some pro- lifers is to punish the women. These women are also victims of a social system that encourages them to take that path.

But let me ask you . All the Trump supporters I encounter tell me they like him because he speaks his mind and to hell with p.c. Well yesterday he spoke his mind and appeared to back track apparently due to pc pressure . What is Trump's true position ....the one he initially spoke ;or the pc one he back tracked to for expediency ?

What is Trump's true position ....the one he initially spoke ;or the pc one he back tracked to for expediency ?

He screwed up answering a hypothetical question.

His screw ups make headlines too, so maybe he did it on purpose.

But Chris Matthews was looking for a gotcha moment. He gave Trump a hypothetical scenario, saying that abortion was illegal and asking Trump if he would punish a woman who broke the law.

Trump took that as a law-and-order question and said yes.

Wow, an egomaniacal politician a serial liar? Whodathunkit?

I know I'm shocked. No, seriously.

His screw ups make headlines too, so maybe he did it on purpose.

He screwed 3 or times yesterday. I don't think any of them were on purpose. But CNN is having a field day at his expenses and the with the REP Party today and it will likley continue until he makes his next gaffe.

Trump was not asked about abortion in a straightforward way. Had he been he would have responded that he was pro-life. Period. Next question. This is not a burning issue in 2016.

You're as brain-dead as Limbaugh was today.

An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?

You're a complete moron.

People lie about crap online all the time. Military service and Mensa are two faves of serial liars.

You're a complete moron.

You give him too much credit.

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

The woman is as much a victim as the baby .

That is a lie. That is a lie. That is a lie.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

I think the abortionist who does the procedure should be executed. Limb by limb.

I'd be surprised if there are even 100 thousand such voters in the entire country.

So you think morality is a vote. That is stupid.

You take the wide gate I will take the narrow one.

You take the wide gate I will take the narrow one.

Coincidentally, I had a couple of polite JWs on the doorstep yesterday, haranguing me politely with just that passage. I felt kinda sorry for them but it made them happy that I didn't call them heretics and slam the door. The Watchtower makes them kind of desperate.

I had to smile. The JWs have their Kingdom Hall across town but the Mormons are right across the street and never knock on doors here. Those Mormons are good neighbors even if I do disagree with their theology.

Coincidentally, I had a couple of polite JWs on the doorstep yesterday, haranguing me politely with just that passage. I felt kinda sorry for them but it made them happy that I didn't call them heretics and slam the door. The Watchtower makes them kind of desperate.

I had to smile. The JWs have their Kingdom Hall across town but the Mormons are right across the street and never knock on doors here. Those Mormons are good neighbors even if I do disagree with their theology.

I love it when Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door.

I talk until they flee and don't want to talk anymore.

Great fun.

Chris Matthews was looking for a gotcha moment.

and if Trump had a well thought out answer he could've easily deflected the question. As an example . Roe v Wade created a national right out of thin air . Had there been no Roe v Wade then it would go back to the way it was before 1973 ;with some states having legal abortion and some states prohibiting the practice . A perfectly good conservative response would've been to say he wanted it pre- Roe when the states had the power to make the law.

Or as I said , he could've turned the question on Matthews and accused him of being a pro-eugenics racist progressive.

Trump's answer played right into the stereotype that the libs have of conservatives ....that they are incompassionate women haters .

"An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?"

Is the court about to hear another abortion case? In the next 50 years?

Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?

You're ignorant.

and if Trump had a well thought out answer he could've easily deflected the question.

His answer was fine.

Ted Cruz is not pro life. He has the same position as Hillary.

Well if you and your ilk get their way we will have Hillary.

Is the court about to hear another abortion case? In the next 50 years?

This session in fact.

I love it when Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door.

I talk until they flee and don't want to talk anymore.

I used to Mormon-proof people's houses for them that way. I know they have a database because once they met up with me, they never came back.

I liked to work the younger missionary with innocent questions while fending off the older handler missionary who would inevitably want to flee before I caused his young dupe to start thinking for himself.

The young JW yesterday, a very nice kid, started looking very thoughtful when I began discussing the history of the Bible and its central role in history. You probably can see why that isn't such a friendly topic for the senior JW. Still, they were nice people. I felt more sorry for the JWs than I ever did with Mormons. JWs are much more cultish IMO so their missionaries are victims, especially the younger ones.

Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?

Does he nominate them? Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?

You're ignorant.

You try to deceive - but luckily for decent people, you're not smart enough to do it well.

"This session in fact."

Texas is trying to regulate abortion clinics out of existence. Hardly Roe v Wade.

"Does he nominate them?"

He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.

"Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?"

Nope. But I bet they tell the President, "You nominate this guy and we'll approve".

Ted Cruz is not pro life. He has the same position as Hillary.

Wrong.

Clinton (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and- opportunity/):

'Women’s personal health decisions should be made by a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor. Hillary will stand up to Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, which would restrict access to critical health care services, like cancer screenings, contraception, and safe, legal abortion.'

Cruz (theiowarepublican.com/201...t-defend-the-sanctity- of-every-life/ ):

'The question of abortion should not be an issue of partisan politics, or even of differing faith backgrounds. It is a fundamental question of justice, and of whether we still hold true those immortal words of our founders — that we are “endowed” by our “Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” the first of which is life.

'Abortion is the stain on our nation’s modern history. We should end it.

[...] 'As Solicitor General of Texas, I was proud to successfully defend a federal law that bans partial birth abortion and to lead 18 states in defending New Hampshire’s parental notifications laws, both cases that we successfully won at the Supreme Court, marking two significant victories for life. While neither of these measures remove the scourge of abortion entirely, they continue shine the light on the atrocity and move us closer to doing so.

'During my time in the Senate, I have continued to fight for life. I am an original cosponsor of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to ban abortions after 20 weeks. I introduced a measure to stop the D.C. Council from forcing organizations to fund abortion services. And when Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and an army of abortion advocates tried to squelch legislation designed to protect the unborn, I proudly stood with the vast majority of Texans to protect the rights of the unborn.'

Is the court about to hear another abortion case? In the next 50 years?

I used to work for an atheist. We were working on his fathers rental property next to his dentists office. Some JW's came to the door.

I was feeling mischievous so I told them it wasn't my house but to come in ant talk to the owner.

He got kind of mad that I let them in to bug him.

:)

He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.

Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016.

Ted Cruz is not pro life. He has the same position as Hillary. Wrong.

Ted Cruz thinks women should be able to get abortions and not face any penalty.

Same position as Hillary.

He puts a lot of lawyer lying in his words. Hillary is more direct.

0 = 0. As in no birth no consequences.

Don't lie to yourself. Be honest.

Ted Cruz thinks women should be able to get abortions and not face any penalty.

Same position as Hillary.

Ted Cruz thinks abortionists should not be able to perform abortions and not face any penalty.

Not the same position as Hillary.

"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."

Of course. But more than just the President decides who sits there. Ask Obama about that.

Ted Cruz thinks abortionists should not be able to perform abortions and not face any penalty.

Not the same position as Hillary.

Pretty much the same.

WHere did Cruz say he would punish the abortionist?

I don't think he ever said that.

Show me please.

"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."

Of course.

The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150.

"The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."

I have no idea what that means.

There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important. So is their position on guns. Drugs. Gay rights. Religious freedom. Privacy and NSA. Environmental issues. Healthcare. Tariffs. And 100 other things.

Are you turning this nomination into a single-issue event?

We'll see if Trump did offend them deeply. It won't take long for the polls to show it.

Polls already show Trump with a 74% disapproval rating among all women. Seems he isolated both the pro-life and pro-abortion lot.

WHere did Cruz say he would punish the abortionist?

Cruz cospnsored (thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D? d114:62:./temp/~bdxnpM:@@@P ) the federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (2015), which provided that "Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." (thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:S.1553:) Cruz supported (www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=35) Texas Senate Bill 1 (2013), which provided that "The Texas Medical Board may take disciplinary action under Chapter 164, Occupations Code, or assess an administrative penalty under Subchapter A, Chapter 165, Occupations Code, against a person who" performs a partial-birth abortion. (https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1/2013/X2)

There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important.

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

Is that the same position he has for murdering someone outside the womb? I don't think so.

That tells me he puts less respect for the innocent then a person outside the womb. He must think less of them.

Wow a fine for murder or 5 years.

Is that the same position he has for murdering someone outside the womb? I don't think so.

That tells me he puts less respect for the innocent then a person outside the womb.

It tells rational people that Cruz has the sense to not make the best the enemy of the good.

And that his position is very much not "the same position as Hillary."

certainly are some assholes

says
the
tape
worm

love
boris

Polls already show Trump with a 74% disapproval rating among all women. Seems he isolated both the pro-life and pro-abortion lot.

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

People in the pro-life movement have spent decades and tens of millions of dollars trying to counter the Lefty propaganda against us over the decades. And here comes Trump, like a turd floating in a punch bowl, and shoots his big flapping mouth off, handing the enemy a major propaganda victory. You can just imagine how much Chrissy's leg is tingling to have tripped Trump up so easily.

Hiring someone to kill your kid is murder you fucking pro abort dumb ass.

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/30/35330907-full-transcript-msnbc-town-hall-with-donald-trump-moderated-by-chris-matthews?lite

The discussion is in the context IF Roe were to be overturned, and IF abortion were legally defined as the crime of murder (or infanticide), under that circumstance, should abortion be punished?

In other words, if an act is legally defined as murder, should it be punished?

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

[...]

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

His point has been the pro life movement focuses on laws to protect the child in the womb. They take aim at abortion providers as well. They don't focus on prosecuting women who had an abortion probably because half the women in the pro life movement are repentant of their own abortions.

I stated Trump was logically and legally accurate in his original comments. However it is hard to broad brush all women who have abortions as premeditated murderers. Many end up getting abortions after someone else convinces them it is ok and the human being in the womb is not a human yet or a person. Which is deception.

The reason the pro life movement focuses on abortionists to legislate laws is if the penalty for providing an illegal abortion is iron clad homicide, no doctor in their right mind will perform the abortion. Eliminate the provider and you leave a woman a real difficult decision to abort on her own which already violates standing fetal homicide laws.

I stated Trump was logically and legally accurate in his original comments. However it is hard to broad brush all women who have abortions as premeditated murderers. Many end up getting abortions after someone else convinces them it is ok and the human being in the womb is not a human yet or a person. Which is deception.

What if someone convinces someone that a black isn't a person. They are a savage. Suppose they are a real dummy.

Suppose that person kills a black person.

That isn't murder is it?

Of course it is. Just like in all abortions. They are all murders. There is no excuse for it.

I think I am being consistent and some others are not.

You said no doctor in their right mind wouldn't provide an abortion if the penalty was high. Well how about this. No woman in their right mind would have an abortion if they were going to face execution or some other harsh penalty.

So if the penalty was death. You wouldn't really have to carry it out because as in the case you made no woman would have one.

What if they just make it illegal for the woman and not the provider. That would have the same affect correct? I don't think so.

I've known TCs posting history for about 6 years. He is not pro abort. Far from it.

He talks a good game sometimes. But he exposed himself as being pro choice. The woman has a choice with no consequences.

By logical extension that means he would be ok with abortion drugs someone could take themselves.

Murder is murder ask God.

The woman has a choice with no consequences.

Helping to facilitate abortions. Just as TC wants.

The discussion is in the context IF Roe were to be overturned, and IF abortion were legally defined as the crime of murder (or infanticide), under that circumstance, should abortion be punished?

You're just Trumpsplaining with text styles.

Trump said women should be punished for abortion. That's all anyone is going to hear, no matter how you want to twist it. The pro-abortion pols and orgs and media are already playing it exactly that way. They pounced within hours of Trump saying it.

I guess you can always just pretend Trump didn't say it.

The pro-abortion pols and orgs and media are already playing it exactly that way.

Yes you are aren't you. At least you admit you are pro abortion instead of lying about it like you have been doing.

But he exposed himself as being pro choice.

Actually, it is Trump who has exposed himself as having a pro-choice worldview, with his Lefty talk of punishing women for abortion and the return of back-alley abortions. That is exactly how liberal New Yorkers talk about it, how all the liberals have talked about it for forty years.

Your problem is your candidate, not me.

And it doesn't matter how many libels about me you make up out of thin air to try to distract the 20 or so posters here at tiny LF. The Donald's problem isn't people at LF (none of which are women, BTW).

Polls already show Trump with a 74% disapproval rating among all women.

That's Trump, unifying the nation. He's similarly unified the votes of the 20-somethings, the Hispanics, most of the indy voters and half the GOP voters.

You're just Trumpsplaining with text styles.

I'm just splaining from the actual transcript, link included.

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

Pebbles is cursing at you. Sure sign that you're on the banning target list.

He'll cut his membership in half to spite his nose.

Yeah, it seems they want an echo chamber.

Pebbles is cursing at you [TooConservative]. Sure sign that you're on the banning target list.

Moderator X is hacking Stone's list as we chit-chat. All will be well, soon.

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.

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