The One & Only Way To Reduce/Stop Abortions

[Robertinfremont]

You do know what conditions are? She is not imposing conditions, she is asking for your response towards legitimate worries regarding actually established rights based on your desires towards protecting the unborn and giving them rights.

As I told her time after time, i do not legislate so your claims are impossible for me to impose even were I to want to impose them. What is hard about understanding those facts?

 

[Lursa]

What do you think 77 percent of Americans want it to say? Does it truly matter what I want it to say? Tell me why my formulation tops what the public at large wants?

Do you persist that the duty of the SCOTUS is to craft brand new laws?

If so, explain why we must have two houses of Legislators when the SCOTUS can simply create all laws? Do you see that part in the Constitution?

I have told you several times that SCOTUS doesnt make laws. Feel free to show where I've written otherwise.

And I will not answer your questions until you answer mine. Once again you completely avoid my direct questions.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Blah blah blah still tryig you best (and failing) to dodge a simple question

how do you make the rights woman and unborn equal . . we are waiting:

opcorn2:

How?

As I persist when explaining to the Lursa, I do not do that.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I have told you several times that SCOTUS doesnt make laws. Feel free to show where I've written otherwise.

And I will not answer your questions until you answer mine. Once again you completely avoid my direct questions.

What you are doing to me is called circle jerking.

As I also tell you, I agree the Supreme Court should not make new laws, they need to leave that to the legislators.

You have badgered me over your request to equate rights of the unborn to the mothers. I told you many times I do not equate them. I merely offered some suggestions. But you refuse to stop bothering me.

Again I dismiss your claim I must equate them to mothers. I explained, and you know I did, that the unborn are not the sole party to not have all rights. I pointed out a mothers children must reach a particular age to enjoy her rights. So there is no such thing as making them equal.

So long as her children do not have her full rights, it is impossible for me to accept your claim I must defend this issue. I do not equate anything you claim.

For you

1 Does a child have the right to contract?
2. Does a child have a right to join our military?
3. Do children have the right to vote?
4. Show me children have the right to drive and use public highways.

Since your discussion is over equal rights do your best version of honest discussion.

 

[AGENT J]

I paid you a high compliment so you insulted me.
2.) Do you think that is good form?

1.) What insult? quote the factual insult please
2.) exposing posts like yours is GREAT for the forum! Hence why the majority of people you interact do the same

 

[Peter King]

As I told her time after time, i do not legislate so your claims are impossible for me to impose even were I to want to impose them. What is hard about understanding those facts?

She asks, quite logically, what rights you want to scrap to make your wishes for the rights of the unborn to become a reality.

If you think it is impossible own that view and tell her so. Not that difficult I would assume.

And this is a debate forum, people will engage with you based on things you have written, that is how forums/message boards and debatepolitics work.

 

[AGENT J]

How?

As I persist when explaining to the Lursa, I do not do that.

Blah blah blah lol another dodge because you know what you claimed cant be down and you cant make an honest and integrity based post to just admit it and its awesome! THis is why people keep exposing the dishoenst and false claims in your posts. Wanna see me do it again? sure!!!


YOU said you would make them equal, how would you do that . . . .ready . . . go!!!





Who bets this question is dodged and run from again?

 

[Peter King]

What you are doing to me is called circle jerking.

As I also tell you, I agree the Supreme Court should not make new laws, they need to leave that to the legislators.

I know what circle jerks mean and nothing on this forum that I have read so far with regard to you comes even close to that.

And the Supreme Court does not make new laws, it evaluates laws already made to review them (reviewing them to see if they violate the constitution or not).

 

[Lursa]

What you are doing to me is called circle jerking.

As I also tell you, I agree the Supreme Court should not make new laws, they need to leave that to the legislators.

Not 'should not,' they DO NOT. OK? Get it?

Now, please answer my questions in that post. Why are you having difficulty? You want a new amendment...that is Congress. What do you want that amendment to consist of?

 

[Lursa]

She asks, quite logically, what rights you want to scrap to make your wishes for the rights of the unborn to become a reality.

Exactly. He wont confront that at all. He intimated that the unborn dont have to have 'equal' rights but in order to protect the most basic...a right to life...still requires those infringements I wrote on women's rights. He ignores that or doesnt understand it.

If you think it is impossible own that view and tell her so. Not that difficult I would assume.

And this is a debate forum, people will engage with you based on things you have written, that is how forums/message boards and debatepolitics work.

Exactly

 

[Robertinfremont]

Not 'should not,' they DO NOT. OK? Get it?

Now, please answer my questions in that post. Why are you having difficulty? You want a new amendment...that is Congress. What do you want that amendment to consist of?

When the hell do you intend to read all of my posts?

Why do you care what I want it to say? I informed you many times, i do not make laws. Why not accept that I make no laws.

I informed you the laws can say what 77 percent of Americans allege they want.

Whan that many Americans want something, i lack all power or authority to demand a thing go into the amendment.

 

[Robertinfremont]

And the Supreme Court does not make new laws, it evaluates laws already made to review them (reviewing them to see if they violate the constitution or not).

You and I agree with that part.

I also told her over and over, I have the same opinion as did Justice Rehnquist and Justice White. She has refused to acknowledge that. I told her I do not make any laws.

 

[Robertinfremont]

YOU said you would make them equal, how would you do that . . . .ready . . . go!!!

That, had I said that, is modified. I know we can't make them equal. I gave the example that children do not have adult rights so that should have solved her problem and yours too.


I seem to recall it was her demanding I justify her claim that I must equate the adult rights to those of children and also the unborn. I do not hold that position at all.

 

[Robertinfremont]

She asks, quite logically, what rights you want to scrap to make your wishes for the rights of the unborn to become a reality.

If you think it is impossible own that view and tell her so. Not that difficult I would assume.

And this is a debate forum, people will engage with you based on things you have written, that is how forums/message boards and debatepolitics work.

I do not advocate what you said. Sure it seems to me to be not possible. I gave examples where it has been shown not to be possible. At least the way laws are made.

 

[Robertinfremont]

1.) What insult? quote the factual insult please
2.) exposing posts like yours is GREAT for the forum! Hence why the majority of people you interact do the same

What insult? After all you keep saying? Are you honestly so insensitive that when you insult you truly do not even understand you did?

 

[Peter King]

In both matters that is just your opinion. And of course you can go so far as to lie about me and when you lie I plan to show you lied.

Again what have I suggested.

1. Amend the constitution
2. Create laws in the Congress that put into legal jargon the codes that conclude we all want Abortion so they make the laws show that.

At first I took no stand either way as to should this nation to want abortions to be legal. If the public craves it, best to have a law.

When I was badgered, I then offered my own personal stand understanding that if the vast majority of the public are in favor, a law can be crafted showing that.

Roe v Wade does not include any public polls.

Except I do not lie to you, if you claim such a thing, you would be the one who is telling fibs. You are trying to make this into something personal which it clearly is not.

Now to the things you have suggested:

1. never going to happen, there are not enough votes to do so in the senate/congress. And then 38 of the 50 states are going to have to approve that. Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington, Virginia, Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, Florida, Delaware, Connecticut, and maybe even more states would refuse such a bill by the senate/congress. Which makes it a NON starter.

2. You do know that it is a STATE right and it is state laws that matter. Congress and the Senate have no business making any laws that are solely the prerogative of the States.

And I do not agree you were badgered, you made claims and other's opposed this. That is how things work in forums and especially in such a divisive issue as freedom of choice/pro-life issues.

And public polls? You do know that many see public polls the polls where the public is asked their opinion? Just like all of the polls I stated were, asked of regular people/the public.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)That, had I said that, is modified. I know we can't make them equal. I gave the example that children do not have adult rights so that should have solved her problem and yours too.
2.)I seem to recall it was her demanding I justify her claim that I must equate the adult rights to those of children and also the unborn. I do not hold that position at all.

1.) LMAO, why do you post so many lies? you did say that and ADULT rights are not the question here. Did you really think that dishonest backpedaled and reframe would work and fool anybody? Would you like me to qoute you and prove you just posted another lie? well sure! :

I would grant the same rights to the unborn all other humans in the USA have. none of us have a full plate of rights. We do not have the right to drive at 200 miles per hour on the public roads. We do not have the right to execute a person who committed a crime against us since Society is granted that right. We can list probably hundreds of instances we as adults do not have a full plate of rights. But who is to blame for removing them? i have long maintained it is mostly the Democrats who removed our rights. Such as over guns.

As to the laughable claim it makes the woman in 2nd place, I submit it makes the two parties equals.

2.) meaningless deflection to my question to you

so here we are, ill ask you AGAIn how do you make the unborn have the same rights as other humans and the two parties equal . . . .

opcorn2:






Who wants to go double or nothing my question is dodged and ran from again

 

[AGENT J]

What insult? After all you keep saying? Are you honestly so insensitive that when you insult you truly do not even understand you did?

BWHAHAHAHA another dodge. . i notice you didnt answer so Ill ask you AGAIn what factual insult . . im waiting

 

[minnie616]

In both matters that is just your opinion. And of course you can go so far as to lie about me and when you lie I plan to show you lied.

Again what have I suggested.

1. Amend the constitution
.

To say what, specifically? Please be specific.


Laws must be Constitutional. It doesnt matter if we 'all want' legal abortion...the Const and our laws protect women's rights. Our laws MUST reflect that. And currently do

Including a woman's right to choose. So, first let's see specifically what your amendment would say...because we cant discuss specific laws until we know what is "Constitutional.'




That's right, SCOTUS rules on what is Constitutional, not what is popular. We have a distinct mandate from the founding fathers that declared we will not promote a tyranny of the majority over the minority.

If it is unConstitutional to force women to remain pregnant against our will...'votes' and opinion dont matter.

I agree.

It would be unConstitutional to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

From the following:

Reverend Millie Peters has worked as an RCRC-affiliate for years, and now heads Kentucky’s Concerned Clergy for Choice group. “As a faith leader, my moral duty is to speak in support of a woman's sacred and constitutional right to make decisions for herself,” she tells Broadly. “Christian scripture tells of Jesus doing good and never judging nor shaming anyone. We are compassionate people who respect human dignity, and our responsibility is to speak for quality healthcare; a basic religious value.”

The Religious Coalition Blessing Abortion Clinics Across America - VICE

 

[Peter King]

You and I agree with that part.

I also told her over and over, I have the same opinion as did Justice Rehnquist and Justice White. She has refused to acknowledge that. I told her I do not make any laws.

Yes, but this is an opinion and debate forum, you might be asked things you do not have an opinion about or that you are not sure about as to how to make your views come a reality. That happens.

But if you want the right to life of the unborn, it is logical to have an opinion about at what gestational age you want these rights to life to come into effect. Is at at conception, is it at viability, is it at week 16. That is a realistic question for example to be asked.

 

[Lursa]

When the hell do you intend to read all of my posts?

Why do you care what I want it to say? I informed you many times, i do not make laws. Why not accept that I make no laws.

I informed you the laws can say what 77 percent of Americans allege they want.

Whan that many Americans want something, i lack all power or authority to demand a thing go into the amendment.

I still dont know why you wont answer my direct questions with direct answers. Now, again, what would your amendment say?

How can you consider, "make new laws," and "make a new amendment" solutions to anything if you cannot articulate what they contain? Say?

It's not a discussion to say, 'snap your fingers and make a law.' The law must be Constitutional. It needs to be legally supportable and justifiable. Or if you want a new amendment...what would that say?

 

[Peter King]

I do not advocate what you said. Sure it seems to me to be not possible. I gave examples where it has been shown not to be possible. At least the way laws are made.

So you do not want there to be right to life for the unborn?

 

[Lursa]

You and I agree with that part.

I also told her over and over, I have the same opinion as did Justice Rehnquist and Justice White. She has refused to acknowledge that. I told her I do not make any laws.

Cherry picking those quotes doesnt show the entire opinion by those Justices. And their opinions...and RvW...have stood challenges for decades.

You have continually claimed you want new laws...we know you dont make the laws :doh...but what laws do you see as a solution? This is the OP topic :roll:

 

[Robertinfremont]

Except I do not lie to you, if you claim such a thing, you would be the one who is telling fibs. You are trying to make this into something personal which it clearly is not.

Now to the things you have suggested:

1. never going to happen, there are not enough votes to do so in the senate/congress. And then 38 of the 50 states are going to have to approve that. Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington, Virginia, Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, Florida, Delaware, Connecticut, and maybe even more states would refuse such a bill by the senate/congress. Which makes it a NON starter.

2. You do know that it is a STATE right and it is state laws that matter. Congress and the Senate have no business making any laws that are solely the prerogative of the States.

And I do not agree you were badgered, you made claims and other's opposed this. That is how things work in forums and especially in such a divisive issue as freedom of choice/pro-life issues.

And public polls? You do know that many see public polls the polls where the public is asked their opinion? Just like all of the polls I stated were, asked of regular people/the public.

Let me understand your objection.

You allege that even though 77 percent of the public approves of Roe v Wade, they would block making that the law of the land by amending our constitution? Explain why they would try to stop such an amendment in their favor?

You and I agree that no such law should escape the laws of states.

That is why I encourage all approving abortion to clamor for an amendment. There it supersedes the laws of states.

Give you an example.

Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery.

And millions of voters approved slavery.

So the Congress created an amendment.

The South was powerless to stop it and the amendment still stands approved in the amendment.

So even though millions still approved slavery, the congress ended it.

I was badgered and had you followed this, you would know I was.

I finally gave up in disgust and asked her to leave me alone.

She refused my request. Still is refusing my request.

Do you honestly feel if you are badgered over any issue, you must keep replying to those doing the badgering?

 

[Robertinfremont]

Cherry picking those quotes doesnt show the entire opinion by those Justices. And their opinions...and RvW...have stood challenges for decades.

You have continually claimed you want new laws...we know you dont make the laws :doh...but what laws do you see as a solution? This is the OP topic :roll:

That crap repackaged and hurled at me again?

When I tell you what I want, you pretend I did not and keep this crap going like a spin machine.

Do you work for Maytag?