Robo
Verified User
Says you, but you’re a fucking uninformed, brain-dead, bullshitting moron!
Time to Revisit the Legalized Murder Travesty
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
Says you, but you’re a fucking uninformed, brain-dead, bullshitting moron!
Robo
Verified User
If the Constitution isn’t the rule of law, then why are LAWS examined by the courts to assure they meet constitutional muster? ......moron!
Robo
Verified User
Again...you think and reason like a child.Listen to a supposed LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR BHO describing the FAULTS of the constitution from his point of view as a radical liberal. Educate yourself before you continue to make an ass of yourself in your obvious ignorance.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMJS4CP3OC0
As I have presented moron, the only person recorded that agrees with you that the Declaration is more important than the Constitution in deciding proper legislation is your leftist hero John Kerry, who once said he wasn’t excited by the Constitution, he was more in tune with the Declaration Of Independence.
If you think I’m a fan of anybody in either of the duopoly parties moron, stay tuned!
Wipe the blood from your nose, pussy.
No, pussy. It's your turn to answer the questions. There are three staring you in the face. Would you like another question? See, now there are four questions waiting for you.I'll wait for your proof Aunt Nancy, I'll understand if you can't produce it.
Robo
Verified User
NO rational arguments, huh Aunt Nancy. You can't back up anything you say and I back myself up with the United States Constitution, huh Aunt Nancy. You're just an old busybody aunt Nancy peeking from behind your curtains shocked at the immoral rest of the world. In reality you don't give a rat's ass about the unborn. You just like to complain about Roe v Wade because your rightwing brainwashers told you to.
Robo
Verified User
No, pussy. It's your turn to answer the questions. There are three staring you in the face. Would you like another question? See, now there are four questions waiting for you.
I can answer any question you can put to me Aunt Nancy.
Robo
Verified User
Robo has an adopted daughter. Robo donates to charities that support homes for unwed mothers and orphanages. Robo is supporting the quest to "LIMIT" abortion unlike you Aunt Nancy. Robo opposes undeclared unconstitutional foreign wars where babies are killed even babies in the womb. What's your claim to fame relative to limiting abortions Aunt Nancy besides complaining about Roe v Wade?
RoboPussy's trying to back peddle his way into a rational argument. Sorry, pussy, you have questions waiting for you!
I've been waiting for days, pussy. Why can't you answer a question?
Actually you can't, pussy. See, now you're in denial.
Pussy is full of shit. You hate children, especially the unborn, and you support rulings made by liberals. In essence, you believe what the democrat party tells you to believe.
Robo
Verified User
RoboPussy's trying to back peddle his way into a rational argument. Sorry, pussy, you have questions waiting for you!
So you say Aunt Nancy, but you don't seem to remember what they are. I understand that you don't!
Robo
Verified User
Let it be recorded that you don't adopt orphaned children, you don't donate to charities that support orphanages and homes for unwed mothers and you support undeclared, unconstitutional foreign wars where babies and even babies in the womb are killed, and you love to bitch with preposterous moral righteousness in opposition to Roe v Wade which was validated by a 5-4 conservative Court.
My gosh it's great to be back! I see Robopussy left a trail of slime before it left, so let's all thank the maker that ol' Granule's here to purge this thread of its filth!
Let's see, where were we? Oh, yeah!
The second problem with Roe is that it is legally, constitutionally mistaken. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “right of privacy” that is “broad enough to encompass” a right to abortion. “As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
What do you dumbfuck perverts make of this part?
Let's see, where were we? Oh, yeah!
The second problem with Roe is that it is legally, constitutionally mistaken. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “right of privacy” that is “broad enough to encompass” a right to abortion. “As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
What do you dumbfuck perverts make of this part?
Robo
Verified User
My gosh it's great to be back! I see Robopussy left a trail of slime before it left, so let's all thank the maker that ol' Granule's here to purge this thread of its filth!
Let's see, where were we? Oh, yeah!
The second problem with Roe is that it is legally, constitutionally mistaken. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “right of privacy” that is “broad enough to encompass” a right to abortion. “As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
What do you dumbfuck perverts make of this part?
Disagreement with a court decision is your right. The only way to change it is by constitutional amendment, or convince the court to revisit the decision, overturn it and repeal it. Good luck! That''s just the way it is.
In the meantime you can explain what you are doing to limit abortions. You can rationally explain why the 4th amendment doesn't protect a woman's right of privacy. You can explain how the 14th amendment doesn't protect ONLY the rights of the BORN.
After that, you can explain to the class what the punishments for abortion should be and how you'd guarantee "equal protection" of the law for both parents of an aborted child.
Then you can explain how alleged conservatives can claim alliances with the Bill Of Rights and it's principle of "LIMITED GOVERNMENT," and then promote "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" intervention in privacy rights.
Disagreement with a court decision is your right. The only way to change it is by constitutional amendment, or convince the court to revisit the decision, overturn it and repeal it. Good luck! That''s just the way it is.
In the meantime you can explain what you are doing to limit abortions. You can rationally explain why the 4th doesn't protect a woman's right of privacy. You can explain how the 14th amendment doesn't protect ONLY the rights of the BORN.
After that, you can explain to the class what the punishments for abortion should be and how you'd guarantee "equal protection" of the law for both parents of an aborted child.
Then you can explain how alleged conservatives can claim alliances with the Bill Of Rights and it's principle of "LIMITED GOVERNMENT," and then promote "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" intervention in privacy rights.
Thanks for being the first dumbfuck pervert to step up to the plate.
Look, professor, you need to lead off with something that the average educated person in this country doesn't already know. The quickest way to glossing every eye in the room is to declare the obvious. Now, I want you to explain why you, a stunted pervert, felt obligated to make that statement.
In the REAL meantime, YOU can explain how you think my stance runs contrary to the 4th & 14th Amendments. Get SPECIFIC.
What am I doing to limit abortions? It's simple. I'm living a good life. I'm being a good parent to our amazing child, and treating my wife with love and respect. I'm constantly talking about the value of life and also about the value of living a good life. It's through being a good example that change really takes place. When I look at political candidates, the first thing I check for is their stance on abortion. If they're opposed to it, then they're a lock. You see, moron, abortion IS murder, and I make that same case with every tree hugging degenerate that I run into. THAT's what I'M doing.
Punishment for murder should be severe. Don't you agree?
I just want my government to help prevent murder. What's "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" about that? Stop being such a hysteric.
What's ironic is that you want "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" to help facilitate abortion. What a hypocrite, and a dumbass....
Last edited:
Robo
Verified User
What statement?
What “stance?” I see a lot of babbling insulting diatribe without much of any explained stance.
In other words your doing nothing aside from minding other people’s business and attempting to impose your imaginary male superiority on women, won’t you agree? No chance of your elite maleness ever being saddled with a decision about an unwanted pregnancy, huh BIG SHOT?
Only if and when the Constitution, (the rule of American law), guarantees constitutional protections for the “unborn.” Until then, there is no such protection, or any murder, but a woman’s right to privacy is protected by the 4th amendment. Of course you’ll totally agree, right? Oh wait! You have no respect for constitutionalism, you just want to mind women’s business, huh?
Oh then you belong to a grass roots crusade operation seeking a constitutional amendment to guarantee constitutional protections for the unborn, huh? What outfit is it? You of course go out every day and get the petition signed by hundereds of folks, right?
What's "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" about that? Stop being such a hysteric.
BIG government is BIG amounts of laws and regulations. Seems you’re promoting more laws and I’m still waiting for your explanation about guaranteeing “equal protections” of the law for both parents when you succeed adding your abortion prohibition laws and the enforcement that it surely requires.
The irony is you think opposing and preventing MORE LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT is promoting BIG government. The exact opposite is the actual truth, but don’t worry, I’ll never expect you to admit it, you’re another Aunt Nancy old lade who gets off minding other people’s business and acting like some smart-mouthed tough eletist male whith the power to rule over women. All evidence is you know not the Constitution, you have no viable solutions for what you call murder and you’re actually doing squat to limit abortions charitably or even have enough ambition and or emotional drive over the issue to seek a constitutional amendment.
Congratulations trash-mouth!
The above statement. My stance.
Hey, I'm not a democrat like you. I'm an actual human male with morals and standards. I understand that the Constitution was written for ALL of society, not just blacks, women, and the LGBT community. Go kiss some Code Pink ass, you silly mangina.
Wrong again, liberal. The Constitution gives zero right to murder. The unborn are an extension of human existence, not a piece of bubble gum. Roe v Wade gave man hating baby killers the right to murder, and that decision needs to be overturned.
Nope. I've already told you what I'm doing. And now we know what you, as a dedicated tool to abortion rights, are doing.
Uh-uh. I am opposed to murder, and that is it. YOU, on the other hand, support murder and will stop at nothing to ensure selfish mommies have the right to commit it. Which means, using government to help facilitate that murder. THAT is where Big Government steps in.
Wrong again, pussy. I've already explained that legalized murder and Roe v Wade needs to be overturned. YOU, on the other hand, are all about legalized murder, and you're absolutely thrilled about a woman's right to choose murder, as well as using BIG government to ensure that legalized murder is nice and safe!
Nice work, Robohypocrite.