It's a medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[g5000]

The problem, of course, is authoritarian conservatives who want to compel conformity through force of law.

And then there are those moralizing bastards who want to compel conformity through force of law by making it illegal to kill YOU.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It was a fact of law that negroes were only 3/5 human.

Incorrect. The law stated negroes were persons, but then stated only 3/5 of those persons would be counted for representation purposes. The law never said what you claimed. Do learn some history, eh?

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Fuck you bitch.

 

[g5000]

This is equivocation bullshit, and you know it.

I know you can't refute my simple statement, so you're evading by rage-pouting.

Life existed before conception. That's not debatable by any honest person. Hence, pro-lifers try to debate it. And if life exists before conception, life can't start at concepetion. Biology and logic, learn it.

No, you applied two different meanings of the word "life" to make your argument.

It's a bullshit tactic. Equivocation.

You know damned well he meant the life of the unborn begins at conception, not life of all beings who are already alive.

Dipshit.

 

[RWNJ]

Admin closed this thread because it contained no original content. So here it is.

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

So, if life begins at conception, doesn't that mean that it should be protected by the 14th Amendment? The only difference between a fully grown adult and a zygote is form, not nature. They both have a unique genetic identity. They are both members of the human species.

When Human Life Begins

What you conservatives don't realize is that when a liberal aborts their babies, 33,000 a month, that means in the future those dead infants wont grow up to be future democrat voters. It is as if the Democrats don't ever want to win an election ever again. Why else would Obama try to bring future democrat voters in from south of the border or Muslims who want to kill the rest of US? Don't try to persuade the liberals to stop aborting, and the world will soon be a better place.

For every abortion, there are three illegals who enter the country and vote democrat.

 

[mamooth]

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

So you posted a link pointing out I was right. The law never said a negro was 3/5 of a person. The law said negroes were persons, but only 3/5 would be counted for representation.

Due to your board status as Useful Idiot, I can always count on you to prove my points. I'll let you know the next time I'd like you to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

No that is not a flat fact. It is a legal fact at this time, not a moral one.

It's a flat fact, whether moral or legal or not.

 

[g5000]

It was a fact of law that negroes were only 3/5 human.

Incorrect. The law stated negroes were persons, but then stated only 3/5 of those persons would be counted for representation purposes. The law never said what you claimed. Do learn some history, eh?

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Fuck you bitch.

Like I said, in the eyes of the law, a negro was 3/5 of a person.

 

[NYcarbineer]

don't think about you guys killing your babies at all. The more you kill the better the world will be...

Jim here certainly is one seriously hateful little prick.

Deep down, most pro-lifers are the same. The possess the same death-lust. They just hide it better.

He's throwing a fit because I nailed his ass.

lol

 

[g5000]

GG, you are not the law, you don't understand the law, so you can write as silly as you want, and is only that: just silly.

A fetus has neither parity nor priority over the mother: flat fact.

No that is not a flat fact. It is a legal fact at this time, not a moral one.

It's a flat fact, whether moral or legal or not.

It is a moral fact the unborn are as human as the mother.

 

[g5000]

And for your side it’s about the authoritarian conservative who wants to compel conformity, contempt for the rights of the individual, and the unwarranted anger common to most rightists that anyone dare disagree with you.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

Wrong, because I know full well that hearts and minds need to be changed first before laws are changed. All I'm doing is trying to get people to wake up and see that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the birth canal. And that human life is precious, at every stage.

Just to add… More and more people are waking up. According to studies, more and more young people are becoming prolife and abortion is becoming more a thing of the past. It probably has a lot to do with new technologies that show the baby in the womb, but for whatever reason, times are changing.

Unwanted children can destroy lives and become a burden on society.

You republicans keep wanting to eliminate any care for children after they are born.

You have no standing to argue abortion.

And there it is. The morally bankrupt pro-abortion argument.

"Pay for my kid, or I'll kill it!"

Using babies as human shields. Sickening.

 

[g5000]

At some magical point, even pro-abortionists agree the child in the womb is a human who cannot be arbitrarily murdered.

They just pick a date. Presto! You're a human now!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It was a fact of law that negroes were only 3/5 human.

Incorrect. The law stated negroes were persons, but then stated only 3/5 of those persons would be counted for representation purposes. The law never said what you claimed. Do learn some history, eh?

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Fuck you bitch.

Like I said, in the eyes of the law, a negro was 3/5 of a person.

Northern FREE blacks were treated the same as FREE white people as US citizens who could vote. Why did the Southern White Democrats and Southern Black Democrats keep black people as slaves?

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/the-truth-about-southern-black-slave-owners/

“The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

Your lack of intelligence is showing again, G...[/quote]

 

[g5000]

Two-thirds of Americans, including half of all who identify themselves as "pro-choice", disagree with Roe v. Wade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

g5000's comment is immoral.

If society insists that children come to families unprepared to care for them, then society morally has the duty to assist the babies and the families.

 

[g5000]

It was a fact of law that negroes were only 3/5 human.

Incorrect. The law stated negroes were persons, but then stated only 3/5 of those persons would be counted for representation purposes. The law never said what you claimed. Do learn some history, eh?

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Fuck you bitch.

Like I said, in the eyes of the law, a negro was 3/5 of a person.

Northern FREE blacks were treated the same as FREE white people as US citizens who could vote. Why did the Southern White Democrats and Southern Black Democrats keep black people as slaves?

The truth about Southern black slave owners

“The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

You lack of intelligence is showing again, G...

In the eyes of the law, negroes were 3/5 human.

It's right there in black and white.

Our laws treated them as 3/5 humans. And no moral argument against that rule was tolerated.

Your responses to the moral argument are no different. "It's the law!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Two-thirds of Americans, including half of all who identify themselves as "pro-choice", disagree with Roe v. Wade.

No, they don't.

 

[g5000]

g5000's comment is immoral.

If society insists that children come to families unprepared to care for them, then society morally has the duty to assist the babies and the families.

Nope. The family has the responsibility of ensuring they are prepared before having unprotected sex.

 

[mamooth]

No, you applied two different meanings of the word "life" to make your argument.

No, I'm just rejecting your bogus definitions of life. There's a big difference. I'm the intellectually honest one.

It's a bullshit tactic. Equivocation.

Defining yourself as correct certainly plays well with the other cult rubes, but rational people reject it. And it's all you have. Pity.

You know damned well he meant the life of the unborn begins at conception, not life of all beings who are already alive.

I've just defined sperm as human lives. I'm using your "I CAN MAKE ANY DEFINITION I WANT!" standard. So, i've proven you're a murderer.

I can see why you use that tactic. Calling other people murderers must give you a big rush of righteousness.

Dipshit.

Your poor triggered snowflake. I understand it's rough, realizing that the propaganda that you believed in was really kind of dumb. Don't worry, you'll work through it. Think of the pain as your first step on the path to rationality.

 

[g5000]

Two-thirds of Americans, including half of all who identify themselves as "pro-choice", disagree with Roe v. Wade.

No, they don't.

It's a fact, they do disagree with Roe V. Wade.

Two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. That is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It was a fact of law that negroes were only 3/5 human.

Incorrect. The law stated negroes were persons, but then stated only 3/5 of those persons would be counted for representation purposes. The law never said what you claimed. Do learn some history, eh?

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

With the convention seemingly at an impasse Charles Pinckney proposed a compromise: “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians, to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.” The Pinckney compromise was not completely original. This ratio had already been established by the Congress which adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 as the basis for national taxation.

Fuck you bitch.

Like I said, in the eyes of the law, a negro was 3/5 of a person.

Northern FREE blacks were treated the same as FREE white people as US citizens who could vote. Why did the Southern White Democrats and Southern Black Democrats keep black people as slaves?

The truth about Southern black slave owners

“The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

You lack of intelligence is showing again, G...

In the eyes of the law, negroes were 3/5 human.

It's right there in black and white.

Our laws treated them as 3/5 humans. And no moral argument against that rule was tolerated.

Your responses to the moral argument are no different. "It's the law!"

You are fucking wrong. Free blacks were treated equally, but you lying sack of shit, think that the Slaves of the south were treated as 3/5 human. Fuck you asshole, go learn REAL history and not what you think is education from public schools. Dumbass.