Time to Revisit the Legalized Murder Travesty

[PostmodernProphet]

I've never killed a child or anybody else. It'd be nice if you stopped lying and making insinuations you can't back up but that's not in your moral closet, I suppose.

there is no difference between fighting to keep abortion legal and taking the scalpel and cutting the child's spinal cord.......that isn't an insinuation....that is an observation......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Post my lie!

you said I wanted bigger government......in no way do I want bigger government......thus, you lied......

 

[Granule]

No! I don't think so, I think it's because y'all big mouthed rightist authoritarians don't really give a flying fuck about the unborn or the Constitution. there's damn little rightwing grassroots organized effort that I've ever seen that actually is trying to amend the Constitution to protect the unborn. I think y'all are all hat and no cattle. Translation: all moralist mouth and no real passion for your alleged cause.

What you think is irrelevant. I just wanted to see if you saw something in the Constitution that I was missing. I guess you didn't.

 

[Robo]

simple minded fuck......I've corrected you on this before.....

Excuse me Madam! I keep forgetting your an authoritarian male pig, who distinguishes different rules of culpability between dicks ans pussies as they relate to the abortion issue.

if they don't abort the child why would we punish them for aborting the child?.

DUH! Because they bear "EQUAL" responsibility for the pregnancy, moron! Why do you have a double standard of culpability for the male? Oh! That's right you are a male, I keep forgetting. You seem more like a busybody old lady to me.

"Equal Protection" of the law would require that the male having had a sexual relationship with any woman would be required by his "personal responsibility" to inquire in notarized writing by registered letter whether the woman became pregnant and if so, pay half for a paternity test to determine if he were the father, then he must request in writing by registered letter his "equal right" to decide the outcome of the pregnancy, to satisfy equal protection of the law for both the woman and the man involved in the event that produced the pregnancy.

 

[Robo]

there is no difference between fighting to keep abortion legal and taking the scalpel and cutting the child's spinal cord.......that isn't an insinuation....that is an observation......

I don't fight to "keep abortion legal." I simply promote the literal text of the constitutional rule of law. I, in that process promote article 5, i.e. the amendment process, which by the way is the only legal option to resolve the abortion issue. Until that day, I'm perfectly willing to leave the abortion issue in the domain of the living, God, creator of all things, and not the whims and end runs around the Constitution by mortal partisan idiots.

 

[Robo]

BTW, adding a constitutional amendment to provide constitutional protections for the unborn, places all abortion activity in the domain of the federal and or State government. That requires legislation after the amendment, enforcement of any and all prosecutions, more court cases, more enforcement of any and all penalties administered. That folks is an extending of BIG government no matter how much you deny it.

 

[Robo]

What you think is irrelevant. I just wanted to see if you saw something in the Constitution that I was missing. I guess you didn't.

As a loyal partisan brain-dead brainwashed follower, You'll never "SEE." You're beyond logical education. My irrelevance to you is no greater than your irrelevance to me.

 

[Robo]

you said I wanted bigger government......in no way do I want bigger government...........

Your opposition to a constitutional amendment to protect the lives of the unborn is duly noted! Now we both know why you don't promote or belong to any crusade organization for such a constitutional amendment, huh?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Excuse me Madam!

no problem, I have trouble keeping track of your balls too.....

I keep forgetting your an authoritarian male pig, who distinguishes different rules of culpability between dicks ans pussies as they relate to the abortion issue.

so why is it that when I state repeatedly that both men and women who seek to kill their children should be treated exactly the same, you keep saying that I have different rules.......is it because you refuse to read what I post or are you simply unable to comprehend what my words mean?....

DUH! Because they bear "EQUAL" responsibility for the pregnancy, moron!

but we aren't punishing someone for being pregnant......we are talking about punishing someone who kills their child by abortion......if they don't want the child and put it up for adoption, who cares about paying for anything?......if they both want to kill the child they should both be given psychiatric counseling to find out why they are so fucking evil......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't fight to "keep abortion legal."

you keep contracicting yourself.....
either you are "perfectly willing to leave the abortion issue in the domain of the living" or not.....if you are you want to keep abortion legal.....if you aren't, you're contradicting yourself.....

 

[Granule]

As a loyal partisan brain-dead brainwashed follower, You'll never "SEE." You're beyond logical education. My irrelevance to you is no greater than your irrelevance to me.

Easy, asshole. It's OK to be proven irrelevant by someone else. You just take a step back, regroup, and find some other way to become relevant.

You can start by correcting your misguided interpretation of the Constitution. Let me know what you find out.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Your opposition to a constitutional amendment to protect the lives of the unborn is duly noted! Now we both know why you don't promote or belong to any crusade organization for such a constitutional amendment, huh?

that doesn't change the fact you lied about me wanting bigger government.......I can understand why you don't want to defend your statement, but at least its obvious to everyone that you're lying.......

 

[Robo]

no problem, I have trouble keeping track of your balls too.....

I don’t! Mine are right where they’ve been.

so why is it that when I state repeatedly that both men and women who seek to kill their children should be treated exactly the same, you keep saying that I have different rules

Surely it’s because you don’t relate equal culpability for the male. You don’t relate his “personal responsibility” in the pregnancy. You say “IF” he’s involved in the decision to abort. You refuse to relate “HOW” he gets involved in that decision. You don’t relate “HOW” or when the government enforcer of your proposed punishments determines the male’s involvement in the pregnancy and the decision to abort or even who he is or where he is. What if his name and address isn’t known? What if he can’t be found? When does the enforcer start hunting down the dick that equally caused the abortion. You don’t relate the male’s responsibility for the sexual act. Your comrades in the anti-abortion debate continuously talk about the responsibility of the woman “spreading her legs,” what about the dick that came out of the pants? When does his responsibility begin? You propose a vague and apathetic desire to enforce any actual equal protection of the laws you propose.

.......is it because you refuse to read what I post or are you simply unable to comprehend what my words mean?....

On the contrary! I dismantle and define your every word and make note of what you avoid saying as much as what you do say.

but we aren't punishing someone for being pregnant

How not? Do you propose punishing a woman who isn’t pregnant? How does she abort?

we are talking about punishing someone who kills their child by abortion......if they don't want the child and put it up for adoption, who cares about paying for anything?......if they both want to kill the child they should both be given psychiatric counseling to find out why they are so fucking evil......

OK! So what’s your proposal to always find and involve the father of the aborted child crime so that equal protection of the law is guaranteed? I’ll wait!

 

[Robo]

you keep contracicting yourself.....
either you are "perfectly willing to leave the abortion issue in the domain of the living" or not.....if you are you want to keep abortion legal.....if you aren't, you're contradicting yourself.....

Pretending you're that stupid isn't flying with me Madam! I'm perfectly willing to leave the abortion issue in the domain and power of the living God! I don't promote abortion being legal or illegal. I promote following the constitutional rule of law. If and when the Constitution is amended to protect the lives of the unborn, I will then also promote that rule of constitutional law. I only believe in human government to the extent that it is government by a constitutional decree/contract agreement with and for the people. As Franklin said, "The Constitution is for the people, if they can keep it."

 

[Robo]

Easy, asshole. It's OK to be proven irrelevant by someone else. You just take a step back, regroup, and find some other way to become relevant.

You can start by correcting your misguided interpretation of the Constitution. Let me know what you find out.

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!

 

[Robo]

that doesn't change the fact you lied about me wanting bigger government.......I can understand why you don't want to defend your statement, but at least its obvious to everyone that you're lying.......

No lie, you proposed the laws to punish abortions. To say I lied, you'd have to had included a footnote to your laws saying you were just kidding. Because Madam, if you really wanted those laws, you really want BIGGER government. So which is it? Do you want those laws? Shall I go back and find your quote?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don’t! Mine are right where they’ve been.

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

Surely it’s because you don’t relate equal culpability for the male.

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

You don’t relate “HOW” or when the government enforcer of your proposed punishments determines the male’s involvement in the pregnancy

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

What if his name and address isn’t known?

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

What if he can’t be found? When does the enforcer start hunting down the dick that equally caused the abortion.

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

You don’t relate the male’s responsibility for the sexual act.

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

Your comrades in the anti-abortion debate continuously talk about the responsibility of the woman “spreading her legs,”

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.....

You propose a vague and apathetic desire to enforce any actual equal protection of the laws you propose.

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?.......

make note of what you avoid saying as much as what you do say.

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?.....

Do you propose punishing a woman who isn’t pregnant?

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....

OK! So what’s your proposal to always find and involve the father of the aborted child crime so that equal protection of the law is guaranteed? I’ll wait!

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.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Pretending you're that stupid isn't flying with me Madam!

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.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No lie, you proposed the laws to punish abortions. To say I lied, you'd have to had included a footnote to your laws saying you were just kidding. Because Madam, if you really wanted those laws, you really want BIGGER government. So which is it? Do you want those laws? Shall I go back and find your quote?

is enforcing laws against criminal action an expansion of the role of government?.......I've always understood that to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of government......

 

[Ralph]

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.