Why is abortion the way of the world?

[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".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know fuck-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

The question was what did the Constitution think of slaves?

 

[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".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know fuck-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

The question was what did the Constitution think of slaves?

Be clear.

That might have been your question. It was not one of mine.

There no question about what the Constitution says and there is no question that the framers (many slave owners themselves) did not walk their own talk about all persons being entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

 

[alang1216]

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

The same constitution that allowed slavery.

The same Constitution that didn't address slavery one way or the other.

I guess I should have been clearer, I was referring to the US Constitution:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

I guess I should have been clearer. I didn't ask you to cite what you're talking about, nor did I in any way indicate that I didn't recognize the quote, so thank you for wasting time trying to pretend your "knowledge" was too advanced.

The question you're trying to dodge is "Using your dubious thinking abilities, please explain in what way slaves would have been better off had the Constitution said what you, in your limitless ignorance and naivete, believe it should have said."

See if you can produce a post that even remotely relates to what I said, rather than what you really, REALLY wish I had said. I know it forces you to answer without reference to your talking points memo, but you'll just have to deal.

You've gotten two strikes so far. Try not to get a third and prove yourself to be the utter waste of time and intelligent conversation that I strongly suspect you are.

Chuz and I were discussing the Constitution. Anyone who can write "The same Constitution that didn't address slavery one way or the other" is obviously not knowledgeable enough to join in. If you want to talk about slavery and what might have been, feel free to start a new thread.

 

[alang1216]

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".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know fuck-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

The question was what did the Constitution think of slaves?

Be clear.

That might have been your question. It was not one of mine.

There no question about what the Constitution says and there is no question that the framers (many slave owners themselves) did not walk their own talk about all persons being entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

I thought it an accurate paraphrase, sorry if you disagree.l

You're right about the framers, I just think they didn't consider Blacks to be persons like themselves. Not unlike how I think about zygotes. I guess history will judge who's right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

Yeah, sorry, not comparable (assuming that's actually a quote from me, which is questionable, since you didn't use the quote function). Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation.

Learn the difference. Engage your brain. Think before you spew.

Your spew:

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.

Please explain how your saying she's the intellectual leader for leftists is anything other than a personal observation.

Please explain why I'm required to show that it is something other than what I JUST TOLD YOU IT WAS.

"Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation."

I get that you really wish you could just decide what I'm going to say for me. God knows, it's the only hope you have of making me stupid enough for you to compete with verbally, barring me sustaining a massive head injury. But I have said it before, and I will keep saying it until you either get it through your rock skull, or until I dismiss you as the single-digit-IQ that you manifestly are: YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH MY ACTUAL WORDS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know fuck-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

The question was what did the Constitution think of slaves?

"I can't answer your question, so I will pretend you didn't understand what was said."

Strike three. You're out.

 

[alang1216]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

Yeah, sorry, not comparable (assuming that's actually a quote from me, which is questionable, since you didn't use the quote function). Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation.

Learn the difference. Engage your brain. Think before you spew.

Your spew:

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.

Please explain how your saying she's the intellectual leader for leftists is anything other than a personal observation.

Please explain why I'm required to show that it is something other than what I JUST TOLD YOU IT WAS.

"Your example isn't a template; it's a personal observation."

I get that you really wish you could just decide what I'm going to say for me. God knows, it's the only hope you have of making me stupid enough for you to compete with verbally, barring me sustaining a massive head injury. But I have said it before, and I will keep saying it until you either get it through your rock skull, or until I dismiss you as the single-digit-IQ that you manifestly are: YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH MY ACTUAL WORDS.

What we have here is failure to communicate. You shouldn't waste any more of your time miscommunicating with me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now that alang has officially disqualified herself from the "Actual Humans" designation and no longer needs to be acknowledged beyond what is given to an incontinent dog eyeing the new carpet, I can move on.

Far from what room-temp-IQ leftist droolers think, the 3/5 Compromise in the Constitution was actually the ANTI-SLAVERY position at the time. It had NOTHING to do with how the Founders saw slaves, and everything to do with limiting the government power and influence of slave OWNERS.

Slave states had small populations of free people, compared to non-slave states, and in many cases, their slave populations equaled or dwarfed their free population. If the Census had counted all of those slaves the exact same as free people, the slave states would have had far more representation and power in government. But there was no way those states were going to sign on to the Constitution if the slaves didn't count toward representation at all. That's why it's called the "Three-Fifths COMPROMISE".

 

[koshergrl]

You're just going to have to deal with me and what I actually say, instead of applying your mindless templates.

If you apply mindless templates ("clearly, [AOC]'s the intellectual leader for leftists") to others you should expect them to be used against you.

Just because it fits in one instance doesn't mean it fits in the other.
Poor leftists suffering from cognitive dissonance. It's sad, and yet creepily fascinating to watch.

 

[koshergrl]

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".

Ahhhh, yes. The ever-popular "I know fuck-all about American history, so I filter everything through a modern lens and make myself look foolish without even knowing it" argument.

Tell me, oh grand high moral arbiter, if the 3/5 Compromise is the damning evidence of anti-black bigotry that you have ignorantly believed it to be, how would it have benefited blacks for slaves to be counted "fully" in the Census?

The question was what did the Constitution think of slaves?

The constitution maintains that no man may be owned by another.

Which is why we fought a war over slavery. The democrats didn't believe the constitution allowed us to use the government to protect our people then, just as they don't believe it is supposed to protect people now.

Nothing has changed. The nazis and slavers are still the same people.

 

[koshergrl]

advances in prevention could eliminate any need for abortion.

What percentage of abortions are truly a need verses a want?

zero.

Unless you count the number of pimps and traffickers who *need* their property to get back to work...I guess that's a *needed* abortion, sort of.

Or if you count the incestuous rapers who get their sisters, cousins, children pregnant and *need* to eliminate the evidence...that's sort of a need. those are teh people Planned Parenthood and the democrats are protecting.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're right about the framers, I just think they didn't consider Blacks to be persons like themselves. Not unlike how I think about zygotes. I guess history will judge who's right.

Yeah. . .

Hey. Here's a thought.

Suppose the country WERE to pass laws to establish the personhood status of children in the womb?

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.


And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

Any neurons firing on that?

 

[alang1216]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

 

[koshergrl]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

 

[alang1216]

[
They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

Who are they? Which shit should I be challenging, the 'they' who go after women or the women who drug their babies in utero?

 

[koshergrl]

[
They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

Who are they? Which shit should I be challenging, the 'they' who go after women or the women who drug their babies in utero?

The state. Prosecutors and child welfare.

Did you really not know or are you actually that out of touch that you have to have everything spoon fed to you?

This mom popped half a Valium while pregnant and they took away her baby.

 

[Mr Natural]

They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

The fuck are you babbling about now?

 

[alang1216]

[
They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

Who are they? Which shit should I be challenging, the 'they' who go after women or the women who drug their babies in utero?

The state. Prosecutors and child welfare.

Did you really not know or are you actually that out of touch that you have to have everything spoon fed to you?

This mom popped half a Valium while pregnant and they took away her baby.

If this mom were really endangering her unborn, I'd have no problem with state going after her. In this particular case it may have been overzealous on their part. I don't know since I'm no doctor.

 

[alang1216]

They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

The fuck are you babbling about now?

I guess we both have to have everything spoon fed. Odd, since it was so clear when she wrote it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[
They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

Who are they? Which shit should I be challenging, the 'they' who go after women or the women who drug their babies in utero?

The state. Prosecutors and child welfare.

Did you really not know or are you actually that out of touch that you have to have everything spoon fed to you?

This mom popped half a Valium while pregnant and they took away her baby.

True. I knew a girl once whose boyfriend was a big pothead. Someone anonymously reported to DCS that she was taking drugs while she was pregnant. DCS showed up at her doorstep and ordered her to get drug-tested. She came back positive for trace amounts of marijuana, about what you might get if someone smoked a joint in the same room with you. They made her drug test every week for the rest of her pregnancy, and then when she had the baby, she had to go to court and jump through months worth of hoops to "prove" that she was a fit mother.

True story, folks. DCS in AZ is death on marijuana, for some reason.