Time to Revisit the Legalized Murder Travesty

[Robo]

don't worry......they may still drop....

you mean when I say they should be treated the same I don't relate equal culpability?.....sorry, chuckles, that does not compute....

That's what you say, but you ignore the differences between the male and female's situation in the abortion issue. You don't explain how they both will be treated the same.The female is directly exposed to your alleged crime, while the male can be and often is incognito. You offer no solution therewith. In such a case how do you guarantee equal responsibility and equal protection of the law?

don't need to.....the crime being discussed isn't "being involved in a pregnancy", its trying to kill the child......

You mean you don't "need to," because you can't, huh?

then chances are, he isn't trying to kill the child....

Thus you see a double standard of responsibility in the pregnancy and the responsibility for the child's life. If he's not to be located, he's automatically innocent of your alleged crime, but she alone is guilty and responsible for the child's life, correct? How do you align that with equal protection?

if he isn't there, how is he causing an abortion?......

He's collectively responsible for the pregnancy and thereby the responsibility for the life and care of the child, a duty which he's avoided, that's how!

I don't consider killing a child to BE a sexual act....

In relation to the abortion issue it seems you "don't consider" much of anything except your authoritarian moral busybody-ism.

if you would like to discuss a different issue we could start a thread for it.....the question asked was what punishment for abortion, not what punishment for spreading legs.....

The punishments you proposed require laws and those laws require a constitutional amendment. You promote the laws by proposing them and you claim to oppose the constitutional amendment by saying I lie when accusing you of promoting BIG government. You accuse me of contradictions, and I prove you're a living contradiction to yourself.

do you really find life in prison for abortion providers and mandatory psychological treatment of those evil enough to kill their children to be apathetic?.......

Actually I "find it" expanding BIG government and creating a quagmire of unconstitutional, unenforceable laws because they cannot be enforced with any correlation with equal protection of the law. What I find "apathetic" and pathetic is your ho-hum opinion of the personal responsibility and culpability of the male half of every abortion.

has it occurred to you that I have avoided saying what you want me to say because I do not believe what you want me to say?.....

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Say what you want and keep digging Aunt Nancy!

I think it would be illogical to punish a woman who wasn't pregnant for killing her unborn child.....you obviously haven't thought this through very clearly....

You obviously haven't figured out yet that there can't be an abortion without a pregnancy, since you seem to think abortion "isn't about" pregnancy. You're a confused little minded Aunt Nancy.

again, if he hasn't tried to kill the child I see no logical basis to punish him for trying to kill the child......if he is trying to kill the child it ought not be difficult to find him.....

Of course Aunt Nancy. I can't accuse you of understanding or admitting you understand anything resembling equal culpability and equal protection, only honest folk understand and admit those kinda things.

 

[Robo]

first of all, quit calling me a woman, you simple minded twit....secondly, all I have done is demonstrate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.....

By golly Aunt Nancy, you fooled me! I never realized you demonstrated anything to me except that you are a fucking rightwing authoritarian Aunt Nancy busybody.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Once again....I would most enjoy "ANYONE" showing me the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or following amendments that grants SCOTUS (1/3 of the Federal Government) the self professed authority to OPINE or TRANSLATE the literal (easily comprehended...an 8th grade educational level) words and sentences in the Constitution to mean something other than the literal contextual meaning in which it was written...waiting for any so called constitutional scholar to point out this self professed authority granted by THE PEOPLE/STATES to change, amend, or make NEW the words and phrases of the Constitution and following amendments.

That authority does not exist. The purpose of SCTOUS (that has taken an oath to protect the constitution) in all its authority is to simply COMPARE any common law ratified by the Congress at the federal or state level with the LITERAL WORDS of a contractual standard among the existing states (all with their own constitution) known as the United States Constitution. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change one word in that contract by opinion only? Why? This is a representative republic....not an oligarchy, no one but THE PEOPLE possess the authority to AMEND the constitution/contract as any change or amendment must be subject to a 3/4 super majority ratification among the states.

Logic dictates that NO CONTRACT among 2 parties (i.e., the States and Fed) can be changed by ONE PARTY void of any kind of formal challenge by the 2nd party. FYI: that's what the constitution is.....a CONTRACT, nothing more, nothing less. If THE FED professes to have the authority to CHANGE that contract that was drafted by THE PEOPLE to limit the scope and power of the Federal Government....void of any kind of REPRESENTATION, that is a clear breech of CONTRACTUAL LAW. This nation is constructed upon and dependent upon THE RULE OF LAW. When a group of UN-ELECTED civil servants that have been given LIFE TIME appointments by LOBBY EFFORT remain in control of the literal words of that contract....this REPUBLIC is not long for this world as that Oligarchy will consist of the best JUDGES THAT MONEY CAN PURCHASE. What do they have to fear when congress will not exercise its constitutional authority to punish those who clearly ignore the standard of the rule of law in this nation?

Nothing! As USUAL.....the leftist social communists and the so called LIBERTARIANS have the MULE attempting to push the plow. If they want, homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, etc., that their state objects to by common law....they are the one's that MUST AMEND the constitution to make it a national standard and Federal Law by Constitutional mandate. NOT VICE VERSA.

Why do they argue that they get the authority by JUDICIAL OPINION? THEY KNOW they would never get the required 75% super majority to amend the constitution...i.e, ADD WORDS not pre-existing, thus they attempt to bypass the will of the PEOPLE and the REPRESENTATIVE requirements thereof by JUDICIAL OPINION from a group of non representative civil servants with lifetime appointments.

That's the very reason for the DOG and PHONY show every time a seat opens up at SCOTUS. Its who they are...its how they garner power, any way they can.

so it is your position that the government is prohibited from setting forth a criminal code of justice?......can we throw out ALL the laws Congress has passed since the Constitution was enacted?.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's what you say, but you ignore the differences between the male and female's situation in the abortion issue.

what is the difference between a man and a woman, each of whom is trying to kill their child?.....

You don't explain how they both will be treated the same

really?.....when I said they both will receive psychological counseling you somehow sensed there was a difference in treatment?....

In such a case how do you guarantee equal responsibility and equal protection of the law

it is inconceivable that a man trying to kill his child will not be present and accessible......

You mean you don't "need to," because you can't, huh?

why should I bother discussing the punishment for getting pregnant when getting pregnant is not a crime?

Thus you see a double standard of responsibility in the pregnancy and the responsibility for the child's life. If he's not to be located, he's automatically innocent of your alleged crime, but she alone is guilty and responsible for the child's life, correct? How do you align that with equal protection?

unarguably if he is not present, he isn't trying to kill the child.....

He's collectively responsible for the pregnancy and thereby the responsibility for the life and care of the child, a duty which he's avoided, that's how!

what does that have to do with trying to take the child's life....

In relation to the abortion issue it seems you "don't consider" much of anything except your authoritarian moral busybody-ism.

I do not consider absurdities....that is all you raise....

saying I lie when accusing you of promoting BIG government. .

merely pointing out the obvious....when you say something which is not true, you lie.....

Actually I "find it" expanding BIG government and creating a quagmire of unconstitutional, unenforceable laws because they cannot be enforced with any correlation with equal protection of the law. What I find "apathetic" and pathetic is your ho-hum opinion of the personal responsibility and culpability of the male half of every abortion.

but that is merely your ignorance at work......sorry.....the role of government is to set forth criminal laws and enforce them.....doing so is not creating a bigger government.....

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Say what you want and keep digging Aunt Nancy!

what I mean, you worthless cunt, is that I won't say what you want me to say, not because I am afraid to admit something, but because I do not believe what you want me to say.....

You obviously haven't figured out yet that there can't be an abortion without a pregnancy, since you seem to think abortion "isn't about" pregnancy.

and apparently you haven't figured out there can be pregnancy without abortion....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

By golly Aunt Nancy, you fooled me! I never realized you demonstrated anything to me except that you are a fucking rightwing authoritarian Aunt Nancy busybody.

well you had me fooled......I thought you kept calling me a woman because you were too stupid to keep track of my gender......I didn't realize that you were doing it intentionally as an insult.....now that I realize the truth I won't bother treating you gently, you simple minded cunt......

 

[Robo]

so it is your position that the government is prohibited from setting forth a criminal code of justice?......can we throw out ALL the laws Congress has passed since the Constitution was enacted?.......

Just most of them!

 

[Robo]

what is the difference between a man and a woman, each of whom is trying to kill their child?.....

Play stupid Aunt Nancy! The difference between a man and a woman related to abortion is the woman bears the burden of the pregnancy while the male has the option in so many cases to go on his merry way, with his dick out of his pants looking for the next victim. You’re authoritarian laws have no explanation of HOW and WHEN your laws provide and guarantee equal culpability and equal protection of your authoritarian law Nancy.

it is inconceivable that a man trying to kill his child will not be present and accessible......

What part of your authoritarian anti-woman law guarantees the male’s presents and culpability?

why should I bother discussing the punishment for getting pregnant when getting pregnant is not a crime?

The “getting pregnant” thingy Nancy is the motive for the abortion every “fucking” time Nancy. That’s why!

unarguably if he is not present, he isn't trying to kill the child.....

He’s likely not present because your authoritarian anti-woman law allows him to be incognito while the woman has no such option Nancy.

merely pointing out the obvious....when you say something which is not true, you lie....

I’m still waiting for you to post my “untruthful post.

but that is merely your ignorance at work......sorry.....the role of government is to set forth criminal laws and enforce them.....doing so is not creating a bigger government.....

Then pray-tell how BIGGER government is created Aunt Nancy. Just what the fuck is your explanation of how government grows?

what I mean, you worthless cunt, is that I won't say what you want me to say, not because I am afraid to admit something, but because I do not believe what you want me to say.....

Again Nancy, what the fuck are you talking about? I don’t give a rat’s ass what you say. You hang your authoritarian anti-woman ass with everything you say anyhow. I don’t have to bait you into saying anything you’re your own worse enemy.

and apparently you haven't figured out there can be pregnancy without abortion....

Oh NO! Such great enlightenment!

There’s no such thing as abortion without a pregnancy Nancy!

 

[Robo]

well you had me fooled......I thought you kept calling me a woman because you were too stupid to keep track of my gender......I didn't realize that you were doing it intentionally as an insult.....now that I realize the truth I won't bother treating you gently, you simple minded cunt......

Oh SHIT! Now I won't sleep tonight!

 

[Ralph]

so it is your position that the government is prohibited from setting forth a criminal code of justice?......can we throw out ALL the laws Congress has passed since the Constitution was enacted?.......

Really? LMAO. Only the laws that contradict the literal reading and contextual integrity of the Standard to the US RULE OF LAW....the United States Constitution. FYI: Congress Critters are representatives of THE PEOPLE and can pass any law that does not conflict with the Constitution...but no FEDERAL LAW has the authority to TRUMP a state law that is more severe than any federal statute. For Instance.....if the state has one law regulating environmental protection and the feds have another...the stronger law must take precedence. ALL LAW and the RIGHT TO LEGISLATE IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE...not SCOTUS, whose sole duty is not to interpret the Constitutional integrity....just read it and compare it to common law at all levels if there is a question to that particular law's constitutionality. If less than 10% of the population can dictate their wishes upon the other 90% we are no longer living in a "FREE SOCIETY".....

Its not rocket science. The darn thing was written at an 8th grade level. Where the confusion comes in is the "feigned" confusion by judges and lawyers where there are millions of superfluous opinions stored that must be considered.

Take for instance the BASIC phrase contained in Article Four, Section Four, Clause One..... only a lawyer could feign ambiguity in that simple one line phrase, and that feigned IGNORANCE is easily explained in a most unambiguous manner in the Federalist Papers...number 10. Of course I am speaking of the CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE that all levels of government must be REPUBLICAN in nature. Not the political party but the representative system as explained by Madison as this nation was constructed under a Representative Republic format where THE PEOPLE by majority always establish the common laws that are but a reflection of the morals or lack thereof of any nation's people.

As I said...."ANYONE", show me the Article, Section, and Clause that gives SCOTUS the self professed authority to make new words in the Constitution via OPINION. ANYONE? If those words do not exist they belong to the STATES/PEOPLE both at the state level and at the federal level via REPRESENTATION, just why does anyone assume that the STATES/PEOPLE send representatives to Washington...to work for the feds or to SERVE THE STATE they represent? .... see, Article 10 in the STATES BILL OF RIGHTS that goes hand and hand with Article four, Section four, Clause One. Only the peoples congress has the right to MAKE NEW LAW...no judge at any level holds that authority.

REPRESENTATION is the key. SCOTUS has no authority to change one word by opinion might less LEGISLATE ENTIRELY NEW LAW from the bench...as they are civil servants APPOINTED by lobby not representation.

The left always attempt to invoke the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority"...but in this republic that phrase (just like SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE) is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution, why? Because the majority rules through representation. Thus, the left invokes and complies with TYRANNY OF THE MINORITIES. And the historical fact remains the same.....no right, civil or otherwise came in this republic without first being GRANTED BY A MAJORITY RATIFICATION. Thus....the majority has the right to change....the minorities possess no guaranteed right to MAKE anyone change....."IF" that right is not found in the Constitution or its amendments....LITERALLY, no right can be OPINED into law by a JUDGE as its THE PEOPLE who pass out rights in this republic not some appointed judge...and the people are given this right by God as clearly stated in this nation's founding documents. Societies evolve....truth does not.

What was TRUTH 250 years ago is TRUTH today....if not, truth never existed in the first place. Truth does not change, truth holds no political position, truth represents no one by but the TRUTH TELLER.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The difference between a man and a woman related to abortion is the woman bears the burden of the pregnancy

they have just killed the child, what "burden of pregnancy"........you really have trouble understanding this entire argument don't you......

Aunt Nancy

Aunt Nancy

Aunt Nancy

Aunt Nancy

I'm tired of this worthless cunt calling me Aunt Nancy.......this conversation is officially over.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh SHIT! Now I won't sleep tonight!

I have decided to do something I don't even do to Trollop.....I tried to engage in a civil argument with you.....no more.....you are now the only person I have on ignore...

 

[Robo]

they have just killed the child, what "burden of pregnancy"........you really have trouble understanding this entire argument don't you......

"They?" You forgot the part where "HE" had, and exercised "HIS" option of disappearing, Nancy. You're so fucking dishonest that you refuse to admit that the abortion was motivated by the unwanted PREGNANCY

I'm tired of this worthless cunt calling me Aunt Nancy.......this conversation is officially over.....

Truth is Aunt Nancy you're really tired of getting your ass handed to you in this thread, huh Nancy?

 

[Robo]

I have decided to do something I don't even do to Trollop.....I tried to engage in a civil argument with you.....no more.....you are now the only person I have on ignore...

Golly Gee! The horror of it! I won't ignore you Aunt Nancy! Post stupid partisan rightwing shit, and you'll hear from me.

 

[Granule]

If my interpretation of the Constitution is "misguided" Big-shot, then surely you'll make a rational argument in opposition. I won't hold my breath shit-for-brains!

Breathe, stupid, BREATHE! And not just through your mouth.

Let's start with your opening statement:

"There is no constitutional protection for the unborn. Constitutional protections, rights, privileges and immunities are specifically guaranteed to "the born" by the Constitution"

Now, I want you, or any other Kool-Aid drinking tool, to prove that the founding fathers intended the "unborn" to be excluded from Constitutional protections, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution.

In other words, I want you to prove that the founding fathers shared your belief that "the born" also means abortion rights for any mom, for any reason, at any time.

 

[Ralph]

they have just killed the child, what "burden of pregnancy"........you really have trouble understanding this entire argument don't you......









I'm tired of this worthless cunt calling me Aunt Nancy.......this conversation is officially over.....

Strange....but this same mother who rationalized they had a BURDEN and could KILL IT to make it go away....still, by law has the burden of caring for that child, if she had not murdered it, until that child is at least 18 years of age. Why can't she simply KILL that burden to eliminate the responsibility and societal baggage...that child is still in a state of gestation just like it was in the womb? What exactly is "magical" about a female vagina that holds the authority to take away the rights of the father as well as the right to live of the unborn? Societal and Emotional trauma? Both emotional and societal stress are recoverable problems....the murder of a child is not. Any mother that would with premeditation KILL their child...in the womb or out...is nothing short of EVIL.

 

[Minister of Truth]

"They?" You forgot the part where "HE" had, and exercised "HIS" option of disappearing, Nancy. You're so fucking dishonest that you refuse to admit that the abortion was motivated by the unwanted PREGNANCY











Truth is Aunt Nancy you're really tired of getting your ass handed to you in this thread, huh Nancy?

Or perhaps just the desire to kill?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

first of all, quit calling me a woman, you simple minded twit....secondly, all I have done is demonstrate you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.....

Isn't there one other poster does the same thing, to other posters??
Maybe there's a sock connection!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Golly Gee! The horror of it! I won't ignore you Aunt Nancy! Post stupid partisan rightwing shit, and you'll hear from me.

UH, no he won't; because by placing you on IA, he doesn't have to read your posts.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

Opinions on abortion in the case of rape or medical complications?

 

[Ralph]

1. No child, born or still growing in the womb should be subject to capitol punishment (death) void of due process because of the fathers crimes. There are any number of childless couples in this nation that are barren and would gladly take any healthy baby available. What about the emotional and societal STRESS? Both are but temporary and very recoverable.....a child cannot recover from what is the equivalent of a lynching or burning at the stake. Talk about being bigoted, aborting a child for the crimes of his/her parents is the ultimate form of bigotry....and FASCISM. Abortion is the poster child endorsing fascism...its where one portion of society declares they are superior to another inferior portion of society that deserves NO RIGHTS. Where have we heard such a declaration before in history? What part of the world executed others for being the weaker portion of society?

This nation was not founded on the principles established by DARWINISM (survival of the strongest)...but rather founded on the principles of natural rights to life and liberty....both being "unalienable" or NON-TRANSFERABLE to any court of law void of due process or even to a MOTHER who feels societal embarrassment or burdened by an unexpected life.

Of course the guilty parent should be subject to the full extinct of the law.....but no child should be subject to paying for the crimes of his/her parents being totally innocent and dependent upon society for its very life.

Note: Does anyone know just how many great historical figures were born from rape, and lived very productive and sometimes world changing lives? Of course not...because SOCIETY has decided to hide these stats from public view...but anyone who has lived as a product of rape is indeed a historical figure. No one has the right to play God...except God.

2. A medical complication is just that....a complication, an foreseen accident or hidden condition and just like all medical emergencies the act of medical triage should be applicable, meaning the most medically determined viable patient should be subject to action first. At best, both can be saved, at worst....only one patient should be lost to an act of nature. FYI: Such acts never come with "premeditation".


3. Above all....any and all medical physicians should remain loyal to their OATH, "First do no harm......"
Abortion on demand should never be an option in a nation where Life and Liberty are guaranteed due process. To understand this....one should first become familiar with the term "UNALIENABLE". All children "CREATED"...not born, but created in the these United States of America is guaranteed to the right of life and liberty in an unalienable fashion. Just how long will this legal precedent be ignored and how long will this nation continue to sacrifice its children at the alter of human secularism?