• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The One & Only Way To Reduce/Stop Abortions

Robertinfremont said:
Why do you fear real laws? If you truly want to be part of law, all we need do is sanctify what you want by law. It was done for Dred Scott.
Click to expand...

Specifically, in simple black and white, bullet points would be great:

What "laws" do want to see enacted that might "solve" the whole abortion issue?
 
Robertinfremont said:
OK, do the math. from 6 per thousand to 11.2 per thousand.

Percentage is not based on 1000, it is based on 100.

Just do the math as I did.

I admitted you caught me being wrong by saying it was a full percent. But it was 10 times smaller than that.
Click to expand...

I read the text, I bolded it. Why are you ignoring that?
 
AGENT J said:
choooo choooo here comes the dodge train . . more dodges. .this keep getting easier and easier!

1.) hey look ANOTHER lie. Please prove this l;ie with one fact that makes it true
2.) thats a nice opinion of yours but its meaningless to anything i said

Ill ask you AGAIN

1.) who said they were???
2.) who said it was legal code?
Click to expand...

I will keep this well above belt high. i will keep my comments above the shoulder and not resort to name calling nor trying to mock you or others.

1. Who said they were? I am not clear who they are? But assuming you mean Democrats, it seems to me they believe it is in the written law. I say the cure is to create actual laws.

2. Who said it was legal code,. I can't answer that question since I have only read a number of comments but not all of them.
 
Lursa said:
And we are doing most of those things...we can do them better and more IMO.

And it's working: most women, *by far* choose to have their babies and the abortion rate goes down every year.
Click to expand...

Agreed, despite those who seek to limit public education of sex education, access to contraceptives and, within limits, a woman's right to choose.

Most people who've read my posts know I'm very anti-authoritarian. I believe in my country, our Constitution and American ideals. I strongly disagree with anyone who seeks to limit the rights of Americans be it LW gun-banners or RW anti-abortionists.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I will keep this well above belt high. i will keep my comments above the shoulder and not resort to name calling nor trying to mock you or others.

1. Who said they were? I am not clear who they are? But assuming you mean Democrats, it seems to me they believe it is in the written law. I say the cure is to create actual laws.

2. Who said it was legal code,. I can't answer that question since I have only read a number of comments but not all of them.
Click to expand...

If you want law, legal code, I have one for you:

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...

It would indeed require changing the Const to alter this.

And I mentioned earlier why that would need to be justified legally...and you have not provided any legal basis for that justification, to supersede women's rights in order to recognize rights for the unborn.
 
Lursa said:
I didnt write that. Congress still has to resolve what I wrote before amending the Const.

So please...answer my questions.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is in the hands of the Congress. So thank you.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I will keep this well above belt high. i will keep my comments above the shoulder and not resort to name calling nor trying to mock you or others.

1. Who said they were? I am not clear who they are? But assuming you mean Democrats, it seems to me they believe it is in the written law. I say the cure is to create actual laws.

2. Who said it was legal code,. I can't answer that question since I have only read a number of comments but not all of them.
Click to expand...

Always a commendable way to post. Can't say I always do it myself, but I strive to do the same.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I agree that it is in the hands of the Congress. So thank you.
Click to expand...

And they need a legitimate legal justification, something Constitutional, to based it on.

What would that be?
 
Robertinfremont said:
1.) I will keep this well above belt high. i will keep my comments above the shoulder and not resort to name calling nor trying to mock you or others.

2. Who said they were? I am not clear who they are?
3. Who said it was legal code,.
Click to expand...
BOOM!!! i knew this would be fun!

1.) too late since you already posted lies about me and my statements :shrug: but feel free to start doing what you claim at any time!
2.) nope who means ME, when did i say the garbage you made up
3.) again then why did you post otherwise . . . .

maybe you forgot......Ill ask you AGAIN

Robertinfremont said:
A.) I am sorry to report that the SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation and simply can rule on it.
B.)So Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.
Click to expand...
Robertinfremont said:
C.) Why do you fear real laws?
Click to expand...

A.) when did i say otherwise? or was it just a meaningless strawman
B.) when did I say otherwise? or was it just a meaningless strawman
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now

and lastly but not least we are still in the same spot where you cant support this fantasy claim you made up
Robertinfremont said:
. When did the Judiciary amend the constitution to stipulate a right is to maim and kill other humans in her control?
Click to expand...

How does that apply to this discussion?


we'll be waiting, thanks!

:popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
I am sorry to report that the SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation and simply can rule on it.

So Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.

A true solution, and use slavery as an example, is to amend the constitution or at the very least codify it in law where all can study the actual laws.
Click to expand...

Glad you brought up slavery.

Kent Pitman had a blog titled:

I am not pro slavery. Are you?

He was describing when a woman is allowed to choose an elective abortion either by force of law or government it can be compared to slavery.


Held to a fate against her will.
Deprived of the right to get out of the situation.
Unable to refuse the work involved.
Receiving no compensation.
That's the very essence of slavery.
Click to expand...
 
(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...

That is not my argument at all.

I simply state and shall one more time, perhaps more, this solution is so easy. To craft laws to simply approve abortion. This should tell you it may help those who are thrilled by abortions.
 
Robertinfremont said:
That is not my argument at all.

I simply state and shall one more time, perhaps more, this solution is so easy. To craft laws to simply approve abortion. This should tell you it may help those who are thrilled by abortions.
Click to expand...

Nobody is thrilled by abortion, not even abortion providers, that is just nonsense.
 
minnie616 said:
Glad you brought up slavery.

Kent Pitman had a blog titled:

I am not pro slavery. Are you?

He was describing when a woman is allowed to choose an elective abortion either by force of law or government it can be compared to slavery.
Click to expand...

I flat out opened your door for it to be completely legal as specified in the codes.

But you want to keep my door shut tight.

I may give up. Maybe I will coach the side who wants all abortions to end.
 
Robertinfremont said:
In my opinion, they are thrilled. So much so they fight for it.
Click to expand...

More bovine excrement, they are fighting for women to have the right to choose. They fight for women's rights and against pro-life extremists.
 
minnie616 said:
Glad you brought up slavery.

Kent Pitman had a blog titled:

I am not pro slavery. Are you?

He was describing when a woman is allowed to choose an elective abortion either by force of law or government it can be compared to slavery.
Click to expand...

If only the womans life was at risk, I support her. But it is a human life that is ripped to shreds by the abortionists tools. In some cases that are known the child was not torn to pieces, simply hauled out and allowed to die by itself. If women who wanted a baby had their children hauled out and put aside to die, what would such women want done?
 
Peter King said:
More bovine excrement, they are fighting for women to have the right to choose. They fight for women's rights and against pro-life extremists.
Click to expand...

King, i shall not follow your lead, your mold.

I will remain above the shoulders and not attack you in person.

I suggest a good solution. But you appear to reject a good solution.

I rest my case that it can be solved by making good and sound laws.
 
calamity said:
It is always amusing to see pro-lifers argue against free and easy access birth control.
Click to expand...

and good sex education of course. And provide pregnancy leave, financial support for children, livable wages, affordable health care, etc. etc. etc.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Arguments are virtually 100 percent based on feelings.

I mock the idea abortion is a right. It was a ruling by the SCOTOS and like the SCOTUs ruling in the case of Dred Scott approving slavery, can easily be solved as in Dred Scott with an amendment to the constitution or even laws created by the US congress.

I am not saying this will end abortion, it will finally make it part and parcel of legislated laws.
Click to expand...

Roe was decided on the right to privacy.
The right to privacy was based on at least 10 precedents regarding family, marriage, procreation , and child rearing.

Including the precedent that allows parents to send their children to a private or religious school instead of a public school.

It would be very difficult to overturn Roe without also dismantling the right to privacy precedents that were decided before Roe.
 
Robertinfremont said:
In my opinion, they are thrilled. So much so they fight for it.
Click to expand...
WHat? bwhahahahah

based on that logic then you must be thrilled to call black people the n-word . . i mean unless you are against freedom of speech and wouldn't fight for it . . cause you know . .if you fight for something it means you are thrilled for it

let me guess your thought is magically different right?

Dont forget post 61!!! :)
 
AGENT J said:
BOOM!!! i knew this would be fun!

1.) too late since you already posted lies about me and my statements :shrug: but feel free to start doing what you claim at any time!
2.) nope who means ME, when did i say the garbage you made up
3.) again then why did you post otherwise . . . .

maybe you forgot......Ill ask you AGAIN




A.) when did i say otherwise? or was it just a meaningless strawman
B.) when did I say otherwise? or was it just a meaningless strawman
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now

and lastly but not least we are still in the same spot where you cant support this fantasy claim you made up


How does that apply to this discussion?


we'll be waiting, thanks!

:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Apparently you do not want true discussion or debate, you want to trash me and i don't play those games.

What you posted in quotes does not represent my argument at all. I was not out to get you.

You did not show the lies you allege.

I do my best not to get trapped into calling others liars.
 
Robertinfremont said:
1.) If only the womans life was at risk, I support her.
2.) But it is a human life that is ripped to shreds by the abortionists tools.
3.) In some cases that are known the child was not torn to pieces, simply hauled out and allowed to die by itself. If women who wanted a baby had their children hauled out and put aside to die, what would such women want done?
Click to expand...

1.) the womans life is at risk every single time . . sometimes its avery smal risk, some times its a huge risk . .


2.) the woman is a human life too
3.) . . .this lie again?:lamo . .

can you tell us where that is legal . . name the states that allow an abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die . . . we'll wait :)
 
AGENT J said:
WHat? bwhahahahah

based on that logic then you must be thrilled to call black people the n-word . . i mean unless you are against freedom of speech and wouldn't fight for it . . cause you know . .if you fight for something it means you are thrilled for it

let me guess your thought is magically different right?

Dont forget post 61!!! :)
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech has no clauses to deny free speech.

And you changed the topic to racism.

I say again, I showed up here with an honest solution to the abortion problem. That I get attacked shows me how weak the other side is or they would argue against my view we can solve it with plainly written laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom