Why is abortion the way of the world?

[Chuz Life]

Except, we Human beings do not morph.

At least not in the biological sense, we don't.

Human beings grow, mature and develop continually through a cell division. Not metamorphosis.

Maybe you need to expand you thinking beyond just the biological? Into the social maybe? I'd say the difference between an egg and an adult is a major metamorphosis.

My personal thinking is irrelevant.

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The most basic (inclusive) definition of a person is "a human being" and as you have acknowledged already, a human being, even in the zygote stage of their life, IS one.

 

[koshergrl]

The left's vision of "community" control and education of children has a noble past...
"In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass claimed that in the part of Maryland where he was born: "to part children from their mothers at a very early age. Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off, and the child is placed under the care of an old woman, too old for field labor."


Slave Childhood

How is this the left's vision? Do you really think slave owners were progressive?

I think progressives are today's slavers.

And this is the exact vision they have for today's children. I could swear I was discussing this with you just the other day..wasn't it you who thought that children should be removed from their homes if their parents taught them to *hate and murder* (or, in other words, if the folks take them to Sunday school..or voted Trump)... But then couldn't figure out how they were supposed to confirm that the kids were being taught to hate and murder without of course violating every constitutionally protected right a human has....

Maybe it was another leftist imbecile.

 

[mamooth]

So in other words, most women having abortions are doing so for convenience: because they just don't want to have a baby right now.

Being that what you quoted there didn't state that at all, you're clearly making wild stories up again in service of your liars' cult,

As one of our ongoing points is how essentially all pro-lifers always lie about everything, I thank you for again reinforcing that point.

 

[mamooth]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

And the writers of the Constitution did not think fetuses were people. Abortion was common and legal when the Constitution was written. The founders had zero problem with it.

Such original intent that should settle things, unless someone is a brazen Constitutional revisionist.

 

[mamooth]

I think progressives are today's slavers.

As you're the ones fighting tooth and nail to enslave pregnat women, that belief appears to be insane, a desperate attempt at projection by the ahyper-authoritarian slavers of the right.

Progressives stand for liberty. That's why conservatives don't understand us. The concept is liberty is simply too foreign to them.

 

[mamooth]

[Yes, let's talk about how atheist countries have historically *dealt* with the *issue* of population control...

"Nazi Germany

Was Christian. You're talking about your people. And their abortion policies were just like yours -- banning abortion for Aryans, forcing it on undesirables, giving nobody a choice.

Remember, your "But the Nazis were leftists and atheists" rank historical revisionism will work on the retarded paste-eaters in your cult, but normal people laugh at it hard.

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

And the writers of the Constitution did not think fetuses were people. Abortion was common and legal when the Constitution was written. The founders had zero problem with it.

Such original intent that should settle things, unless someone is a brazen Constitutional revisionist.

The founder's implementation of their original intent was not perfect. Far from it. Look at slavery and women's suffrage, for example.

As the original intent was to preserve and protect the rights of all person's equally, the question becomes "would they or would they not have banned abortion" if they had the knowledge and understanding about human development, like we have today.

You are free to assume they would ignore all of it and maintain their original ignorance. I happen to believe they would see abortions for the violation of basic human rights, as I (and countless others) do.

 

[mamooth]

As the original intent was to preserve and protect the rights of all person's equally, the question becomes "would they or would they not have banned abortion" if they had the knowledge and understanding about human development, like we have today.

What do you think the founders didn't understand about human development? They were quite aware of how pregnancies happen and how a fetus grows. What new knowledge do you think would change their minds?

 

[Chuz Life]

As the original intent was to preserve and protect the rights of all person's equally, the question becomes "would they or would they not have banned abortion" if they had the knowledge and understanding about human development, like we have today.

What do you think the founders didn't understand about human development? They were quite aware of how pregnancies happen and how a fetus grows. What new knowledge do you think would change their minds?

Were they aware of the fact that women and blacks were "persons" entitled to equal rights?

If they managed to miss the obvious, what makes you think they didn't miss the small and deniable too?

 

[mamooth]

Were they aware of the fact that women and blacks were "persons" entitled to equal rights?

Yes, they were aware that blacks and women were persons. That's because the definition of person has been consistent for all of humanity over all of human history. Human, born, alive. The pro-life revisionism in that area is something that's very recent.

If they managed to miss the obvious, what makes you think they didn't miss the small and deniable too?

They didn't miss the obvious concerning what a person is.

 

[Chuz Life]

Were they aware of the fact that women and blacks were "persons" entitled to equal rights?

Yes, they were aware that blacks and women were persons. That's because the definition of person has been consistent for all of humanity over all of human history. Human, born, alive. The pro-life revisionism in that area is something that's very recent.

If they managed to miss the obvious, what makes you think they didn't miss the small and deniable too?

They didn't miss the obvious concerning what a person is.

Yeah, you can just feel how strongly the framers regarded women and blacks as "persons," when you read the text of something like the 5th amendment.

5th. Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I bet slaves especially were comforted by the way the framers regarded them as persons.

 

[ding]

There are are many reasons abortion is justified.

I don’t see how abortion can ever be justified.

I believe abortion is rationalized.

But it is never moral to end a human life.

 

[alang1216]

Except, we Human beings do not morph.

At least not in the biological sense, we don't.

Human beings grow, mature and develop continually through a cell division. Not metamorphosis.

Maybe you need to expand you thinking beyond just the biological? Into the social maybe? I'd say the difference between an egg and an adult is a major metamorphosis.

After all, Chuz, as Alexandria Occasional Cortex says, “I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” And clearly, she's the intellectual leader for leftists.

As a conservative lead by Trump you should be a bit less sanctimonious. He gave the right 'alternative facts' and 'truth is not truth'.

 

[alang1216]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

 

[alang1216]

I think progressives are today's slavers.

And this is the exact vision they have for today's children. I could swear I was discussing this with you just the other day..wasn't it you who thought that children should be removed from their homes if their parents taught them to *hate and murder* (or, in other words, if the folks take them to Sunday school..or voted Trump)... But then couldn't figure out how they were supposed to confirm that the kids were being taught to hate and murder without of course violating every constitutionally protected right a human has....

Maybe it was another leftist imbecile.

It was another leftist imbecile. Strawman much?

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

 

[alang1216]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".

That is not an "allowance" for slavery. Especially not explicitly so.

However, that language does support my claim that blacks especially were not recognized as "persons." Three fifths is not a whole.

 

[alang1216]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".

That is not an "allowance" for slavery. Especially not explicitly so.

However, that language does support my claim that blacks especially were not recognized as "persons." Three fifths is not a whole.

Now I'm confused.

In the same post you say:

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.​

and:

However, that language does support my claim that blacks especially were not recognized as "persons."​

Is the Constitution saying that not all human organisms are "persons" entitled to the equal protections of our laws or not?

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

How did the Constitution "allow" slavery?

Explain.

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".

That is not an "allowance" for slavery. Especially not explicitly so.

However, that language does support my claim that blacks especially were not recognized as "persons." Three fifths is not a whole.

Now I'm confused.

In the same post you say:

The constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.​

and:

However, that language does support my claim that blacks especially were not recognized as "persons."​

Is the Constitution saying that not all human organisms are "persons" entitled to the equal protections of our laws or not?

Did I really need to put emphasis on the word THAT?

Clearly, there is a bit of a contradiction in the wording between those two parts of the Constitution. Especially if taken out of context.

However, you should already know that the amendments were added for clarification and to get the damn thong ratified. So, there should be no misunderstanding as to what the spirit and purpose of the language is.