Robo
Verified User
And your evidence that a child in the womb thinks and wants is what? What did you think about and want when you were in the womb? What language did you think in?
Time to Revisit the Legalized Murder Travesty
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
And your evidence that a child in the womb thinks and wants is what? What did you think about and want when you were in the womb? What language did you think in?
Robo
Verified User
And you belong to what organized crusade to get the Constitution amended? Go find one on the net and claim it, nobody will know you're a Johnnie-come-lately around here.
A constitutional amendment to prohibit abortions would require legislation/laws to establish punishments for abortions. What would you recommend they be?
More Ad Hominem BS? Its always the case with anyone that can't logically and reasonably defend their position...the end result with any liberal or so called libertarian....personal ad hominem attacks as some form of deflection away from their invalid position. Again. SHOW ME.....just where in the constitution a female has the right to KILL her unborn child. But I can show you the opposite with the very first legal document ever ratified by representatives of the PEOPLE....the declaration of Independence which clearly states that ALL MEN ARE "CREATED" EQUAL (not born...but created) with the "UNALIENABLE" RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY.
Then you attempt to justify and rationalize your false premise that CONCEPTION is not the point from which ALL MEN ARE CREATED.....against all logic, reason, religion, and SCIENTIFIC evidences to the contrary....you state that creation begins at the moment a child breeches the magical female vagina or is taken after 9 months of constant growth or gestation....
Just how then can the legal system test the child in the womb in order to determine parenthood...after just a few weeks of gestation? Strange is it not that the courts allow such testing in to determine parenthood in order for the female to collect any supposed support she feels she is entitled to...but....that same legal test cannot be used to determine PARENTAL RIGHTS for the Father.
Just what do you call a system that favor's only half the population? What? The father has no right to protect his offspring before it exists the magic box? Why? What justification determines that a father has no rights during pregnancy....but during conception at copulation that act is a SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.....but once conceived....the mother invokes privacy and refuses to allow the father any say about the life or death of his son/daughter...but as soon as the little tyke peaks at the outside world...BAM! Its a shared responsibility once again...and sooner if she options to test for parenthood with a DNA test with the child still in the womb.
Yep...that a real HUMANITARIAN POSITION there.....if you are a FASCIST.
Last edited:
Punishment should meet the crime. What do other murderers get when they kill another human being with premeditation? And...the physician that has taken an oath to "First do no harm..." should be subject to due process as a criminal as well. You are the perfect example of a tear jerking, emotionally angered LIBERAL.... EVIL should be confronted wherever it is found....not appeased.
Do you THINK that people should feel sorrow for a mother that kills their child? Really. You are what your actions demonstrate you to be. Ignorance, depression, drugs, etc., is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity of any kind. And if you want to find a constitution that supports anything that you have suggested......I would try the former USSR constitutions...or the common laws of communist China.
You have to be a CHILD...because you think and reason as a child.
ONLY when it comes to humans. For plants, it's a plant...For animals that live birth, it's that particular animal the whole way through. In humans, for a seemingly inexplicable reason, it's just a clump of cells...a "parasite". But you and I both know that's simply a rationalization to ease their guilt. Arguing personal responsibility is futile as the "progressive" mind can't grasp the concept. That's also how they get around to the man having no say in the matter either way. "You fucked me, now you're going to pay"...
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that's obvious from the Hallmark cards that you can buy saying "Come to our parasite shower!"......
In WHAT world does the man have ANY say? Can he successfully and legally DEMAND a gal get an abortion? Can he successfully and legally demand she carry a child to term? Can he successfully and legally demand the child gets put up for adoption? Can he opt out of financial responsibility if he didn't "mean to get her pregnant"? Even when they are "married", the answer to all of those is absolutely NOT. Just WHAT say does the father have in any of it, that the mother can't override? I CRAVE enlightenment on this...
Robo
Verified User
You’re the bullshitter, bullshitter.
You shall find I can and will defend my every word bullshitter! I’ll be expecting the same from you and you’re up shit’s-creek without a paddle.
“The right of people to be secure in their persons.” (Amendment 5)
“All PERSONS BORN in the United States are citizens of the United States..........no State shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizen of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” (Amendment 14) ]
Robo
Verified User
As I told you before bullshitter, the Declaration is simply the “WHY” America declared it’s independence. The Declaration is NOT the rule of law of the land, the Constitution is the law of the land! Nothing in the Declaration trumps the Constitution nor can it trump the Constitution.
Robo
Verified User
The Constitution requires that only PERSONS BORN shall have constitutional protections. Born is OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB Try again bullshitter.
Robo
Verified User
But Just how then can the legal system test the child in the womb in order to determine parenthood...after just a few weeks of gestation? Strange is it not that the courts allow such testing in to determine parenthood in order for the female to collect any supposed support she feels she is entitled to...but....that same legal test cannot be used to determine PARENTAL RIGHTS for the Father.
At this point, all of that is irrelevant since it will constitutionally take a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortions.
Robo
Verified User
Yada, yada, yada! All irrelevant at this point.
If a constitutional amendment is passed to prohibit abortions. The amendment will require legislation to enforce it and punish abortions. What’s your idea of the laws that should be passed and how would you guarantee equal protection of the laws for both parents of an aborted child?
Since rightwingers claim they favor “limited government,” how does prohibition of abortion equate to limited government?
It doesn't NEED to specify ANY particular weapon. They are ALL "arms". It is all encompassing. Just as it doesn't specify muzzle loaders or any other type of armament. There is not a single weapon on Earth, according to the Constitution of the Unites States of America, that as a citizen in good standing of the United States of America, I may legally be denied. You can't show me one and prove it factual. The fed can't prohibit ANY arm constitutionally, and neither can the states.
Side question...Does the CotUS grantus any rights?
You sure that's the argument you want to use here?
I said the desire to live is hardwired into each of us, including the unborn. I said nothing of what the fetus was thinking. Nobody really knows what they're thinking when they're able to think.
I hope that helps, given that you've already got a severe learning disability. Hang in there, dipshit.
No, dumbass, I answered your question, and now you get to answer mine. We do this in an orderly fashion.
No, he's not sure he wants to use that argument. The mouth breather doesn't even understand that he's a tool for the democrat party.
Right....the declaration is not a rule of law...thus, The United States is still officially under the rule of law established in G.B. LMAO. As I said, liberals always have the mule attempting to push the plow....THE DECLARATION came first, and as you stated...that ACT ratified by THE PEOPLE gave simple reasons as to why the US could no longer live under the tyrannical laws of G.B, and as clearly stated...THE US established as precedence that men are granted their natural rights of being human from a higher transcending authority than that of mankind....God the creator.
One of those "unalienable" rights stated very clearly endorses the philosophy that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.....with the unalienable right to life and liberty.."
Now while you are attempting to push the plow with nose of the mule....you declare that precedent does not apply and limits those rights not to the CREATED but to the BORN only, as if there was a statement in the 5th amendment that rescinded the original REASON as to why the US found G.B. law to be tyrannical....NOW YOU WISH TO INVOKE THE SAME tyranny and LAW UPON the PEOPLES of the UNITED STATES? Really? Why not? Your type of guild has already found a way to place exponentially more of a TAX burden upon the People than G.B. could have ever dreamed. Now you attempt to "OPINE" that the declaration defining the tyranny is NULL AND VOID.
Only an emotional Liberal could contradict their own argument in just one thought. You state that the declaration defined the reasons for the need of a revolution...then you attempt (in the same breath) to invoke one of those reasons worthy of REVOLUTION upon the people once again.
As I said....YOU MUST BE A CHILD the way you reason void of any kind of logic.
Last edited:
Hardly...THE OPINION of a judge is not an amendment, what was LOBBIED into law can just as easily be dismissed...all void of any kind of constitutional amendment. Again...the mule is pushing the plow. You say that its OK to legislate law from the bench void of the peoples representatives...but....but...in order to rescind that UNCONSTITUTIONAL amendment void of the people's representatives....THE PEOPLE "must" ratify an OFFICIAL AMENDMENT to do away with the OPINED LAW. Really? In the real world....it would take an official amendment to justify ABORTION ON DEMAND....not the inverse...because the constitution in no way authorizes the killing of its gestating children void of due process. Abortion on demand was OPINED into existence and it can just as easily be OPINED AWAY. If not, why not?
Laugh, My, Proverbial,
Ass, Off.
Robo
Verified User
Agreed! The same thing goes for abortion rights. Rights are unalienable and cannot be denied by government, except by constitutional amendment. Thus the word ”ABORTION” need not appear in the Constitution because it is an unalienable right in conjunction with a woman’s right to privacy as guaranteed by amendment 4 and the fact that the Constitution does not guarantee constitutional rights for the unborn and only a constitutional amendment can change any of that.
YES! “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9)
All rights are unalienable and guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is the American people’s contract with government. The only way government can revoke a right is to declare an action presently being practised as not being a right and thereby revoked by constitutional amendment. Otherwise any and all actions performed by the people that infringe on nobody else’s rights are unalienable individual rights.