A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Jack4jill]

Learn what a person is? And learn what a human being is? You can be human without being a person, like a dead body, You can't murder a dead body even though it's human.

Since a fetus is also not a person, you can't murder it either but you can kill it.

These are legal things more than science. Science already knows a fetus isn't a baby, you don't.

A fetus can't be murdered?

Try selling that shit to the defense attorney's for those already doing time in jail for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

You should get top dollar!

There aren't many, and it's impossible.

The host you can murder, not the parasite.

Like I said, try selling that denial shit to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

They shouldn't be, it's garbage. I can't help the fact we have irrational bad laws on the books, there are many.

But they are still laws, and like, the Roe decision, expected to be followed.

Never said they should obeyed one way or another, I said they are wrong. The idea is untrue.

 

[Czernobog]

What I said was dumb?

"Why are you just repeating what I said?

TWO parts, female and male, create ONE new human being.

Within that ONE new human being are female and male, TWO parts."

Once again, things merge; sperm fertilizes egg.

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

 

[Jack4jill]

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

And that was corrected, at great cost to the nation. Actually, you make my point, that simply by declaring people to be non-people, we can make more palatable treating them like animals. Thank you.

Not like animals, like parasites, which is roughly what they are from a biological standpoint.

And as I said, don't look to the Constitution. US history clearly shows there is no right to life. Biology doesn't show one either since the average zygote won't make it.

 

[Jack4jill]

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

 

[hadit]

A fetus can't be murdered?

Try selling that shit to the defense attorney's for those already doing time in jail for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

You should get top dollar!

There aren't many, and it's impossible.

The host you can murder, not the parasite.

Like I said, try selling that denial shit to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

They shouldn't be, it's garbage. I can't help the fact we have irrational bad laws on the books, there are many.

But they are still laws, and like, the Roe decision, expected to be followed.

Never said they should obeyed one way or another, I said they are wrong. The idea is untrue.

That's your opinion. That and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbuck's.

 

[hadit]

Two sets of 23 chromosomes come together and merge in a single cell to make a new human. That's it.

And that's what dumbass doesn't understand, two become one.

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

 

[hadit]

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

 

[HUGGY]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Doesn't it make a difference what trimester the woman is in?

It depends on the state exactly when, that's why defining it a fetus one moment and a baby the next makes no sense. Very few would agree it's only a baby when it exits the mother's body.

One would think that to charge the murderer with two counts the fetus would have to have developed past the same time frame as what the law has decided in abortions.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Doesn't it make a difference what trimester the woman is in?

It depends on the state exactly when, that's why defining it a fetus one moment and a baby the next makes no sense. Very few would agree it's only a baby when it exits the mother's body.

One would think that to charge the murderer with two counts the fetus would have to have developed past the same time frame as what the law has decided in abortions.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

 

[Czernobog]

A fetus being a person isn't science. Like a belief in God, it's dogma.

A fetus is a human being... I don't know what a "person" is... it's ambiguous terminology that can mean virtually anything you want it to mean.

Learn what a person is? And learn what a human being is? You can be human without being a person, like a dead body, You can't murder a dead body even though it's human.

Since a fetus is also not a person, you can't murder it either but you can kill it.

These are legal things more than science. Science already knows a fetus isn't a baby, you don't.

A fetus can't be murdered?

Try selling that shit to the defense attorney's for those already doing time in jail for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

You should get top dollar!

There aren't many, and it's impossible.

The host you can murder, not the parasite.

Like I said, try selling that denial shit to those already doing time for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

Except, ya see, I am old enough to have been around when those laws were debated,l and finally passed. The fetal homicide laws - you'll notice they called them "fetal" not "unborn baby" - laws were never about protecting the "fights" of fetuses. No. Those laws were passed because of the hearing testimony of angry, and distraught women; women who were rightfully angry, because criminals had forced them to miscarry through violent acts.

But no one talked about the fetus, or the fetus as a person, or the fetus' "right to life". Do you know why no one talked about that? Do you know why no one talked about that? Because they knew that the minute they started talking about that shit; the minute they talked about a fetus as if it were an actual person, they would immediately loose every bit of support for the bills from the Pro-Choice communities, and legislators. They would loose that support, because it would have been seen for what it was - a back door attempt to legitimize fetal personhood.

So, they didn't talk about that. They talked about, and to, the women who had lost their pregnancy due to violence, and the nation, understandably felt pity, and the laws were passed with overwhelming majority. Those few of us who knew where that would lead, and warned against the passage were ignored. And, now, here we are, today, with the moralists doing precisely what we tried to warn our pro-choice compatriots they would do, if these laws were passed.

But, don't pretend for a moment that these laws were ever meant to protect fetuses. They were designed to get vengeance, and justice for women, who wanted to have a child, who suffered miscarriages that could have been avoided, were it not for the actions of violent criminals. They were specifically designed with verbiage to exclude abortion for just that reason.

 

[HUGGY]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Doesn't it make a difference what trimester the woman is in?

It depends on the state exactly when, that's why defining it a fetus one moment and a baby the next makes no sense. Very few would agree it's only a baby when it exits the mother's body.

One would think that to charge the murderer with two counts the fetus would have to have developed past the same time frame as what the law has decided in abortions.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

WOW! I had no idea. Those laws seem to contradict the establish law concerning when life begins as defined by the abortion laws. Looks like grounds for appeal for murderers. I wonder how the Supreme Court would look at this.

 

[Czernobog]

Does that new human have any rights to that new life it is now living? Or, no?

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

Doesn't it make a difference what trimester the woman is in?

It depends on the state exactly when, that's why defining it a fetus one moment and a baby the next makes no sense. Very few would agree it's only a baby when it exits the mother's body.

One would think that to charge the murderer with two counts the fetus would have to have developed past the same time frame as what the law has decided in abortions.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

WOW! I had no idea. Those laws seem to contradict the establish law concerning when life begins as defined by the abortion laws. Looks like grounds for appeal for murderers. I wonder how the Supreme Court would look at this.

The law apparently doesn't view them the same.

 

[Jack4jill]

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

A newborn laughed and smiled? Unlikely.

"When to expect it: Many babies laugh out loud for the first time when they're 3 or 4 months old, although the first laugh may come later for many other babies. Baby's first laugh might be inspired by something as simple as seeing a favorite toy, pet or person (that would be you, Mom and Dad)."

 

[Czernobog]

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

A newborn laughed and smiled? Unlikely.

"When to expect it: Many babies laugh out loud for the first time when they're 3 or 4 months old, although the first laugh may come later for many other babies. Baby's first laugh might be inspired by something as simple as seeing a favorite toy, pet or person (that would be you, Mom and Dad)."

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

You're not being consistent. A newborn baby has no more ability to do those things you insist make a human a person, yet you would fight tooth and nail to prosecute a mother who kills her newborn. If you want to be consistent, you have to maintain that birth is NOT the point at which a baby becomes a person, and I don't think you're willing to do that. You would also have to insist that a human LOSES their personhood when they descend into a deep coma, because they also cease to be able to perform those activities.

Really? You have clearly never been a parent. My newborn communicated with me from his very first day. He smiled, he cried, he laughed. Now, was his communication primitive? Sure. But that didn't make it any less communication. Get back to me when a fetus begins to communicate.

A newborn laughed and smiled? Unlikely.

"When to expect it: Many babies laugh out loud for the first time when they're 3 or 4 months old, although the first laugh may come later for many other babies. Baby's first laugh might be inspired by something as simple as seeing a favorite toy, pet or person (that would be you, Mom and Dad)."

Well, I can only speak to my personal experience. Hell, it may have been a burp; I don't know. all I know is that my baby, from day one, expressed himself, however crudely. Like I said, get back to me when you have documented evidence of a non-viable fetus doing that.

 

[Jack4jill]

There is no right to life. You make it or you don't.

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

 

[Czernobog]

There is an American Constitutional right to life. Of course, rational people understand that means that the government cannot take that life from you without due process, but please do continue down the road of extreme exaggeration.

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

 

[Jack4jill]

What was the Due Process that protected slaves?

There was none. Non-persons, property. Don't look to the Constitution to help you.

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

 

[Czernobog]

Bad example. We were wrong to not consider persons of colour persons, just because their skin colour was different. And we corrected that mistake. The difference was that black people were capable of reason, emotion, communication, self-expression, and all of the other things that make a person a person. Regardless of what the moralists would like everyone to believe, a fetus is not. Now, the first time a fetus - not a "former fetus" mind you, but an actual fetus - expresses to us it hopes, dreams, desires, fears; once a fetus writes a poem, or a piece of music; once a fetus produces a work of art, then I will happily admit that I am wrong, and jump on the "Don't kill the fetus" bandwagon.

Until then, a fetus is not a person; it is merely a potential person, and I will, forever, be more concerned with actual people, than I am with potential people. And I will not apologize for that.

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

 

[Jack4jill]

I need no apology and it's a good example of a right to life, there isn't any. It's a dumb idea and always will be until someone figures out how to stop spontaneous abortion because, the fetus has a right to life.

And, as I pointed out, rational people understand that the right to life is the right to prevent the government from taking that life away from you without due process. You're taking it to an absurd extreme, purposely.

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.