The One & Only Way To Reduce/Stop Abortions

[Robertinfremont]

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

You believe a solution to your problem is name calling. Saying I lied or calling me out as a liar.

I am not able to find reason to keep up with your targeting me for derision.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Apparently you do not want true discussion or debate, you want to trash me and i don't play those games.
2.)What you posted in quotes does not represent my argument at all. I was not out to get you.
3.) You did not show the lies you allege.
4.) I do my best not to get trapped into calling others liars.

MORE DELICIOUS DODGES!!!

1.) translation . . you got caught posting lies and your attacks on me failed so now you deflect and play the victim card. But that to delicious fails . . if this bothers you in the future simply dont post lies and your problem will be fixes.
2.) they are your words that you said, sorry if English bothers you
3.) fact remains i showed all 3, another fact is you continue to dodge and run from them much to my entertainment

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

Please let us know when you can back up your false claims, thanks!

 

[Lursa]

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.

The laws must be COnstitutional. TO accord rights to the unborn...which clearly are not persons by law...is unCOnstitutional.

I have asked you to provide some legal justification that Congress could use to amend the Const...and still not violate women's Constitutional rights (or give some legal justification for violating women's Const rights and making us 2nd class citizens again...which SCOTUS has already determined. We are equal.)

 

[Lursa]

In my opinion, they are thrilled. So much so they fight for it.

It's a fight for women's right to retain their bodily sovereignty and self-determination.

 

[minnie616]

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.

Roe is legal.

Roe has been revisited 10 times if I recall correctly.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I have never heard that the Judiciary can amend the constitution. When did the Judiciary amend the constitution to stipulate a right is to maim and kill other humans in her control?

Here is what she said, meaning Lursa.

Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
How do you solve the violation of women's Constitutional rights if such rights were also recognized to protect the unborn?

They cannot be treated equally under the law...how do you justify believing that the unborn are more deserving of Constitutional rights than women? One cannot have them without superseding the rights of the other.

She made the claim it is constitutional to have an abortion. And that protecting her child or children as well, means her rights are lost.

I read from time to time about some woman who takes her children into a room and executes them by smothering them, carrying them in a car into a lake and drowing them but somehow her child in her is different.

Yes the difference is it escaped an abortion and was not later put to death. She did it earlier.

unborn do not deserve superior rights, but she will never be put to death for aborting her own child. The child is executed.

 

[Peter King]

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.

Saying something is bovine excrement is not attacking you in person.

And you do not suggest good solutions. What you want is not good law but very bad law.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

MAN CAN I CALL IT OR CAN I CALL IT!!! lmao'

just like i said you claim your example is magical different but its the same logic
1.)ZERO topic was changed, you just posted ANOTHER lie
2.) another failed deflection since you cant defend your failed claims

this keeps getting better and better!!!

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
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?

 

[Lursa]

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?

More hysteria and ignorance.

97.5% of all abortions consist of a kidney-siized unborn being flushed painlessly from the womb.

The rest, the later term ones, are for medical reasons (unborn or mother). And in those sad & unfortunate cases (because pregnancies that go this late are those that are wanted), by law, lethal anesthetic injection must be given before any removal.

 

[Lursa]

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.

It is no solution for any woman that does not want to remain pregnant.

It means forcing her to remain pregnant against her will. How is that moral? It's certainly not Constitutional.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You believe a solution to your problem is name calling.
2.) Saying I lied or calling me out as a liar.
3.) I am not able to find reason to keep up with your targeting me for derision.

1.) hey look ANOTHER lie failed deflections, please support the lie you just made up with one fact that makes it true
2.) the fact is multiple lies have been exposed in your posts a
3.) aaaaaand yet another lie and failed deflections

Ill ask you again
A.) when did i say otherwise? (SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation) or was it just a meaningless strawman
B.) when did I say otherwise? (Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.) or was it just a meaningless strawman
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?
E.) Please post the facts that show "I" believe a solution is name-calling
F.) Please quote me calling you a liar
G.) Please tell us all the states that allow abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die

we are waiting, thanks!

 

[Robertinfremont]

Roe is legal.

Roe has been revisited 10 times if I recall correctly.

You know, Dred Scott was even upheld by the Supreme Court. But congress solved it using legislation. I support what they did for Scott in his case. It was reversed by Congress.

 

[Lursa]

Here is what she said, meaning Lursa.



She made the claim it is constitutional to have an abortion. And that protecting her child or children as well, means her rights are lost.

The unborn is not protected by the Const., they have no rights. I've posted the law...why do you keep ignoring it?

And any born child can be protected by the govt (with due process) without violating a woman's Const. rights. It cannot act on her unborn, as in stopping an abortion or even discovering her reproductive status) without her consent.

 

[Robertinfremont]

1.) hey look ANOTHER lie failed deflections, please support the lie you just made up with one fact that makes it true
2.) the fact is multiple lies have been exposed in your posts a
3.) aaaaaand yet another lie and failed deflections

Ill ask you again
A.) when did i say otherwise? (SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation) or was it just a meaningless strawman
B.) when did I say otherwise? (Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.) or was it just a meaningless strawman
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?
E.) Please post the facts that show "I" believe a solution is name-calling
F.) Please quote me calling you a liar
G.) Please tell us all the states that allow abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die

we are waiting, thanks!

Wait, you claim now you did not say I lie?

This after calling me a liar at the top.

YOUR WORDS

1.) hey look ANOTHER lie failed deflections, please support the lie you just made up with one fact that makes it true
2.) the fact is multiple lies have been exposed in your posts a
3.) aaaaaand yet another lie and failed deflections


To the balance of your claims.

A.) when did i say otherwise? (SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation) or was it just a meaningless strawman I have no idea what this is about.
B.) when did I say otherwise? (Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.) or was it just a meaningless strawman. I have no idea what this is about.
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now Clearly you keep after me. I do not recall being after you.
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?
E.) Please post the facts that show "I" believe a solution is name-calling What is calling me a liar?
F.) Please quote me calling you a liar
G.) Please tell us all the states that allow abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die

I know of a case where this happened. As to me naming which state or other states is moot.

The net is not a perfect tool. I recall this issue came up about the time I was on an AOL forum that is cancelled by AOL. At that time it would be easy for me to locate the precise case.

So can I find a state now that allows this? Frankly I won't go down that rabbit hole to research it for you. I told a story. As I say, the net is so imperfect that when I search, I spend hours since the case is pretty old by this time.



we are waiting, thanks![/QUOTE]

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Wait, you claim now you did not say I lie?
2.)This after calling me a liar at the top.
3.)YOUR WORDS

1.) hey look ANOTHER lie failed deflections, please support the lie you just made up with one fact that makes it true
2.) the fact is multiple lies have been exposed in your posts a
3.) aaaaaand yet another lie and failed deflections


To the balance of your claims.

A.) when did i say otherwise? (SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation) or was it just a meaningless strawman I have no idea what this is about.
B.) when did I say otherwise? (Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.) or was it just a meaningless strawman. I have no idea what this is about.
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now Clearly you keep after me. I do not recall being after you.
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?
E.) Please post the facts that show "I" believe a solution is name-calling What is calling me a liar?
F.) Please quote me calling you a liar
G.) Please tell us all the states that allow abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die

I know of a case where this happened. As to me naming which state or other states is moot.

The net is not a perfect tool. I recall this issue came up about the time I was on an AOL forum that is cancelled by AOL. At that time it would be easy for me to locate the precise case.

So can I find a state now that allows this? Frankly I won't go down that rabbit hole to research it for you. I told a story. As I say, the net is so imperfect that when I search, I spend hours since the case is pretty old by this time.

LMAO here we go with more dodges!!!
1.) hey look another lie, please quote me saying that thanks
2.) never called you a liar one time
3.) AWESOME!!!! thanks for proving yourself wrong and that you just posted another lie

guess ill add that new lie to the list!!!

soooo here we are in the same spot

Ill ask you again
A.) when did i say otherwise? (SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation) or was it just a meaningless strawman
B.) when did I say otherwise? (Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.) or was it just a meaningless strawman
C.) please quote what i actually said and show how im factually slithering away from it now
D.) how does fighting for something equal being thrilled?
E.) Please post the facts that show "I" believe a solution is name-calling
F.) Please quote me calling you a liar
G.) Please tell us all the states that allow abortion to occur by birthing a healthy baby and just leaving it to die
H.) Please quote me saying "I didn't say you lie"

we are waiting, thanks!

opcorn2:

 

[Robertinfremont]

The unborn is not protected by the Const., they have no rights. I've posted the law...why do you keep ignoring it?

And any born child can be protected by the govt (with due process) without violating a woman's Const. rights. It cannot act on her unborn, as in stopping an abortion or even discovering her reproductive status) without her consent.

I am not ignoring the law you used. It defines a human that is born. I Read your law different than you did. It was protected by legislation, not imbedded in the Constitution. Still as law it is entirely valid. So i do not say not being in the constitution invalidates it. I say Roe V Wade is not found in the constitution, but is found in the laws by the SCOTUS. But the argument persists to this day. So a ruling in the SCOTUS does not mean with the public it is settled. I submit a solution. I do not find good arguments against my solution. So give it a try.

 

[Robertinfremont]

The unborn is not protected by the Const., they have no rights. I've posted the law...why do you keep ignoring it?

And any born child can be protected by the govt (with due process) without violating a woman's Const. rights. It cannot act on her unborn, as in stopping an abortion or even discovering her reproductive status) without her consent.

I believe for a long long time the SCOTUS did not address this issue at all. So in Roe v Wade, it took up the laws of states. And ruled on said laws.

But as they protected a woman's alleged privacy rights, they did not craft new law. Sure they ruled on when an abortion is illegal. But that did not work well for Dred Scott as I keep pointing out. A law was crafted that has stood the test of time. We quit slavery and it has put to an end any debate that wants slavery back.

So, I am being harassed by one or two posters over comments I would appreciate this fight end by putting abortion directly in the law codes.

 

[Divine_Wind]

It's a fight for women's right to retain their bodily sovereignty and self-determination.

Agreed. It's a fight for the rights of American citizens against those who want to deprive them of their rights by fabricating the idea that a single human cell takes away their rights. The same such people used the Bible to justify slavery and, then as is now, to justify males dominating females in society.

 

[Dragonfly]

this solution is so easy. To craft laws to simply approve abortion.

I asked you before and you didn't answer.

Please answer.

What kinds of laws are you suggesting?
Be specific.
Make a list if need be,

What "laws" would fix this whole conundrum?

 

[Lursa]

I believe for a long long time the SCOTUS did not address this issue at all. So in Roe v Wade, it took up the laws of states. And ruled on said laws.

But as they protected a woman's alleged privacy rights, they did not craft new law. Sure they ruled on when an abortion is illegal. But that did not work well for Dred Scott as I keep pointing out. A law was crafted that has stood the test of time. We quit slavery and it has put to an end any debate that wants slavery back.

So, I am being harassed by one or two posters over comments I would appreciate this fight end by putting abortion directly in the law codes.

You still didnt answer my questions and SCOTUS doesnt 'craft' law.

I'm not harrassing you, I'm asking you the exact same thing I ask any pro-life person who is discussing the legal aspects of abortion. So why arent you participating? Dragonfly is asking also. Politely.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Your source spelled out 11.5%...I bolded it for you.

So please acknowledge that 11.5% and 14% are significant. (the 14% is much more recent)

Lursa, I do owe you an apology but not for failure to abide your own figures. But you low balled it.

I retract the claim married account for less than 1 percent and now say and shall prove it, t he true number is around 25 percent married.

Marital status and abortion.
[Article in English, French]
Wadhera S1, Millar WJ.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
This article examines the marital status of women who obtained abortions between 1974 and 1994, with particular attention to those who were married or in common-law relationships.

DATA SOURCES:
The data come from Statistics Canada's publications on abortions, in-patient hospital morbidity data, and reports from the United States.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES:
Crude and age-standardized abortion rates from 1974 to 1994 were calculated by marital status.

MAIN RESULTS:
While abortion rates were highest for single women, those who were married (including common-law and separated) accounted for over one-quarter of all abortions performed in 1994. Since 1974, the age-standardized abortion rate per 1,000 married women aged 15 to 44 almost doubled from 6.6 to 11.2. For most of these women, it was their first abortion, and the majority had taken at least one pregnancy to term.

Marital status and abortion. - PubMed - NCBI

I was however relying on the final closing comments by the Feds where this was said.

Marital status and abortion.
[Article in English, French]
Wadhera S1, Millar WJ.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
This article examines the marital status of women who obtained abortions between 1974 and 1994, with particular attention to those who were married or in common-law relationships.

DATA SOURCES:
The data come from Statistics Canada's publications on abortions, in-patient hospital morbidity data, and reports from the United States.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES:
Crude and age-standardized abortion rates from 1974 to 1994 were calculated by marital status.

MAIN RESULTS:
While abortion rates were highest for single women, those who were married (including common-law and separated) accounted for over one-quarter of all abortions performed in 1994. Since 1974, the age-standardized abortion rate per 1,000 married women aged 15 to 44 almost doubled from 6.6 to 11.2. For most of these women, it was their first abortion, and the majority had taken at least one pregnancy to term.

It seems to conflict with the 25 percent number and reduces them to less than 1 percent. I do not understand the difference and can't claim to know.

Remember they say 11.2 per thousand. Per thousand often confuses the issue since percent is actually based on x per 100.

 

[Tryingtogetit]

I must say i agree with your list... yes stopping the issue before there is a issue is best....However i would like to add on and that is the bible, Our country falls further and further away from God with each generation taking therre kids to church less and less. (i am also guilty of this) my kids grew up with me having strong morals and they knew my morals were based on the bible and we did go on and off over the years so they are saved and know God, however so many today just don;t. And this may sound corney but i swear from my own experience can say when you go to church and read your bible it makes you a better person. You start to not do things that God says not to do and find your self doing more good things, making choices like to have sex or not to is easy when you believe it is in your best intrest not to because God says so, and so you kno wits true. i think if we all did more church maybe we could then look around and not see so much kayos. I dont know that is my 2 cents

Sent from my HP Chromebook 11 G5 using Tapatalk

 

[Robertinfremont]

You still didnt answer my questions and SCOTUS doesnt 'craft' law.

I'm not harrassing you, I'm asking you the exact same thing I ask any pro-life person who is discussing the legal aspects of abortion. So why arent you participating? Dragonfly is asking also. Politely.

I have been both posting and intensely watching the impeachment hearings. Sorry but can you ask me again in full context?


But keep in mind, all I have done is propose a solution.
I apologize since you know what you said far better than I know what you are asking about.

 

[Lursa]

I have been both posting and intensely watching the impeachment hearings. Sorry but can you ask me again in full context?


But keep in mind, all I have done is propose a solution.
I apologize since you know what you said far better than I know what you are asking about.

No. Follow the arrows back. It's only a 10 page thread (or low post count).

 

[Robertinfremont]

I asked you before and you didn't answer.

Please answer.

What kinds of laws are you suggesting?
Be specific.
Make a list if need be,

What "laws" would fix this whole conundrum?

Well, if you want to end the hassle of going to the SCOTUS, and YOU want an actual law, as I said many times, create legislation to do as you want. Do not worry what I want, do what you want. Do it legislatively or in the Constitution.

This applies to both sides of the abortion issue.

We all know that states are today fighting against Abortion. So the SCOTUS did not end the argument.