True conservatives are pro-choice

[M14 Shooter]

according to modern conservatives....fetuses are citizens......but liberals are NOT

What conservative has argued this?

 

[Ravi]

It wasn't so long ago people asked the same question about blacks

Blacks are obviously post birth...you know, living, breathing creatures...just like whites. Your continual comparison is RGS retarded.

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

 

[JBeukema]

It wasn't so long ago people asked the same question about blacks

Blacks are obviously post birth...you know, living, breathing creatures...just like whites. Your continual comparison is RGS retarded.

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

What's so hard for them to grasp?

 

[JBeukema]

Blacks are obviously post birth...you know, living, breathing creatures...just like whites. Your continual comparison is RGS retarded.

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

 

[DiveCon]

Blacks are obviously post birth...you know, living, breathing creatures...just like whites. Your continual comparison is RGS retarded.

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

What's so hard for them to grasp?

it seems impossible for SOME

 

[DiveCon]

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

are you talking about 3/5 compromise?

 

[Ravi]

his point is valid, since at one time blacks were not legal considered citizens

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

 

[Ravi]

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

3/5 of a person.

 

[DiveCon]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

are you talking about 3/5 compromise?

yes
that was the best they could have hoped for at the time, but looking back it was repugnant

 

[DiveCon]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

3/5 of a person.

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

 

[DiveCon]

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

you are deviating from his premise which is what the LAW was

and again, the law applies if you want to define when "LIFE" begins


btw, if "life" doesnt begin till birth, why was Scot Peterson convicted for killing 2 people (AKA PERSONS)

 

[M14 Shooter]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS
a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

3/5 of a person.

In terms of figuing representation in Congress...
Slaves - or, more correctly, non-free people - were 3/5th a person.
Free people of any and every race were considered as a full person.
This would include all free Blacks.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

are you talking about 3/5 compromise?

yes
that was the best they could have hoped for at the time, but looking back it was repugnant

I am going to make a thread and send you a link.

Most people, including myself, do not (well did for me) understand what the 3/5 compromise was all about.

A little teaser.....the people who did not support slavery did not support the 3/5 comprimise, they wanted it 0/5 the ones who supported slavery wanted every slave counted.

Screw it I'm not making hte thread i'll just explain why the above is true below (from wiki)

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

 

[Ravi]

not only were they not citizens, they werent even considered full PERSONS

a non-black non-citizen was at least seen as a PERSON under the law

3/5 of a person.

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

 

[DiveCon]

are you talking about 3/5 compromise?

yes
that was the best they could have hoped for at the time, but looking back it was repugnant

I am going to make a thread and send you a link.

Most people, including myself, do not (well did for me) understand what the 3/5 compromise was all about.

A little teaser.....the people who did not support slavery did not support the 3/5 comprimise, they wanted it 0/5 the ones who supported slavery wanted every slave counted.

Screw it I'm not making hte thread i'll just explain why the above is true below (from wiki)

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

thats not the point
the point is that the LAW saw them as LESS

 

[DiveCon]

3/5 of a person.

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

but the LAW didnt
you are missing the point

 

[Ravi]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

you are deviating from his premise which is what the LAW was

and again, the law applies if you want to define when "LIFE" begins


btw, if "life" doesnt begin till birth, why was Scot Peterson convicted for killing 2 people (AKA PERSONS)

Because he was not entitled to make the decision.

 

[Ravi]

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

but the LAW didnt
you are missing the point

No, I'm not. Buttemia is trying to pretend that since the law said slaves were not full persons that somehow the law was valid. It never was. It was always unconstitutional to allow slavery...it just took awhile before people understood that.

And fetuses still are not full persons, no matter what the law says.

 

[JBeukema]

His point is invalid because the blacks you speak of were living, breathing humans...not fetuses.

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

Not alive?


Did you ever take biology in school?