[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
At least we aren’t arguing about sperm anymore…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
At least we aren’t arguing about sperm anymore…[/quote]
No, but we are now playing the race card. Just throw out words like blacks and slaves to make the white man get defensive and scared.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
At least we aren’t arguing about sperm anymore…[/quote]
No, but we are now playing the race card. Just throw out words like blacks and slaves to make the white man get defensive and scared. [/quote]
We aren’t liberals, so that isn’t what is happening.
Just because your argument is the equivalent of a rotten tomato, and we point out it is a fruit, doesn’t mean we are playing any cards.
If you are scared, it is likely because you actually do see the parallels between your arguments and those of the Southern Democrats.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
The thing is that it is not the same argument. You actually believe the pro-slavery side claimed blacks were not human beings? The Greeks thought their slaves were not human beings? [/quote]
lol, you just keep on rationalizing and justifying the murder of people with semantics. Let me know how that works out for you.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I never said that however.
[/quote]
You implicitly did. You said you are against abortion for yourself (personally), but also said others people shoudl be allowed to. If you think other people should be allowed to get an aobrtion you implicitly believe abortion is okay.
See bold
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(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.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.”
You are right, a few pistons and lug nuts are not an engine even though they could be assembled inot an engine. Which is why an egg & sperm are not a human being, but once assembled they are.
At 12 weeks many “human features” have already been developed and several pages back I posted a link where even this early (it might not have been 12 weeks maybe 20 I can’t remember) can be viable.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
At least we aren’t arguing about sperm anymore…[/quote]
No, but we are now playing the race card. Just throw out words like blacks and slaves to make the white man get defensive and scared. [/quote]
Dude, get the fuck out of here with this shit.
The race card? Come on…
Recap:
Person A: The law says a fetus isn’t a person.
Person B: A couple hundred years ago the law said someone with balck skin wasn’t a person (3/5ths to be exact).
Person A: Wow, way to use the race card to scare the white man into agreeing with you.
PWI in a nut shell.
All I need now is for Pitt to tell me I’m doing the devils work or whatever it was…
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I advocate legislation based on facts. The facts are that the organism in utero is a human being. [/quote]
That is not a fact and that is why your argument is flawed. Either change the definition of human being or show how the accepted definition applies to a zygote. That’s where your argument needs to start. [/quote]
http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsenâ??s Human Embryology, Carlsonâ??s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and Oâ??Rahilly and Muellerâ??s Human Embryology & Teratology.” â?? Dr. Robert George
http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm
“from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say, after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger, needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth. Human development is a continuum in which so-called stages overlap and blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.”
http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
“In this White Paper, Dr. Condic challenges some of the conventional wisdom about
that moment and argues that a coherent and non-arbitrary analysis of the scientific
data forcibly points to the conclusion that a new human life commences at the
precise moment when the membranes of the sperm and egg cells fuse. Specifically,
she critiques the more common position that human life begins about 24 hours later
during an event called syngamy (the breakdown of the two pronuclear membranes in
the new cell, which results from the fusion of sperm and egg).”
So… prove me wrong. Prove it’s not a human life.
[quote]pat wrote:
So… prove me wrong. Prove it’s not a human life.
[/quote]
I don’t need to because you were asked to prove it is a person/human being. Keep in mind that there is a legal and dictionary definition. You are arguing something that even pro-abortion people don’t dispute. It’s a given that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a human organism.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
: A couple hundred years ago the law said someone with balck skin wasn’t a person (3/5ths to be exact).
[/quote]
That’s wrong and you need to read up on your history. The 3/5ths was about counting slaves as far as population went for the purposes of number of representatives in Congress. And, if you actually read the “Three-Fifths Compromise” you would know that it wasn’t about individual slaves counting as three fifths of a person (what does that even mean? They have three fifths of the rights of free men?) but as their total population being calculated to three fifths of that number.
You should also keep in mind there were free blacks in America during slavery. Some even owned slaves.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the past the law hasn’t recognized a black “entity” as a person. [/quote]
lol, his mind is so closed here, he literally can’t see that he makes the same arguments that were made for justification of slavery, in order to justify abortion.
Doesn’t even see that…
Not even for a second, even when it is pointed out to him. [/quote]
The thing is that it is not the same argument. You actually believe the pro-slavery side claimed blacks were not human beings? The Greeks thought their slaves were not human beings? [/quote]
lol, you just keep on rationalizing and justifying the murder of people with semantics. Let me know how that works out for you. [/quote]
Abortion is still legal so how is your argument working for you?
And why avoid the slavery question you brought up? Because it has nothing to do with abortion and your entire premise, that blacks were not considered persons, was wrong.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
: A couple hundred years ago the law said someone with balck skin wasn’t a person (3/5ths to be exact).
[/quote]
That’s wrong and you need to read up on your history. The 3/5ths was about counting slaves as far as population went for the purposes of number of representatives in Congress. And, if you actually read the “Three-Fifths Compromise” you would know that it wasn’t about individual slaves counting as three fifths of a person (what does that even mean? They have three fifths of the rights of free men?) but as their total population being calculated to three fifths of that number.
You should also keep in mind there were free blacks in America during slavery. Some even owned slaves. [/quote]
Dude, this is getting ridiculous. Why do we count our population? To count the number of people in a specified area. Non-free people, mostly those with dark skin, were counted as 3/5ths a person. They were not considered an entire person. Even if it doesn’t apply to every non-free person, which I doubt, it still only counts 3/5ths of the non-free population which means 2/5th are not considered people. The bottom line is a portion of “non-free” PEOPLE were not counted as PEOPLE in early American history.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
: A couple hundred years ago the law said someone with balck skin wasn’t a person (3/5ths to be exact).
[/quote]
That’s wrong and you need to read up on your history. The 3/5ths was about counting slaves as far as population went for the purposes of number of representatives in Congress. And, if you actually read the “Three-Fifths Compromise” you would know that it wasn’t about individual slaves counting as three fifths of a person (what does that even mean? They have three fifths of the rights of free men?) but as their total population being calculated to three fifths of that number.
You should also keep in mind there were free blacks in America during slavery. Some even owned slaves. [/quote]
Dude, this is getting ridiculous. Why do we count our population? To count the number of people in a specified area. Non-free people, mostly those with dark skin, were counted as 3/5ths a person. They were not considered an entire person. Even if it doesn’t apply to every non-free person, which I doubt, it still only counts 3/5ths of the non-free population which means 2/5th are not considered people. The bottom line is a portion of “non-free” PEOPLE were not counted as PEOPLE in early American history.
[/quote]
Wrong. It’s 3/5ths of a number and has nothing to do with personhood. BTW, you know who wanted them counted as is? Southern whites. Yeah, slave owners actually wanted their slaves to be counted as people. The 3/5ths was a compromise. That sort of makes your position look even more ridiculous.
Did you know Indians counted if they paid taxes? Hmmm, so you are a person if you are non-white as long as you pay taxes?
Were white women considered people? They couldn’t vote.
“Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own. …They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together. …Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?” - Alexander Hamilton
If blacks were not considered people then was it bestiality when a slave owner had sex with a slave?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s a given that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a human organism. [/quote]
How do you justify ending a human organisms’s life?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Wrong. It’s 3/5ths of a number and has nothing to do with personhood. BTW, you know who wanted them counted as is? Southern whites. Yeah, slave owners actually wanted their slaves to be counted as people. The 3/5ths was a compromise. That sort of makes your position look even more ridiculous.
[/quote]
Lol, okay. I have never once head a single other person take this stance.
Ya, it says Non-free people right in the constitution, it just so happens, most of the non-free people were black back then.
They were/are free and, get this, they were counted as 5/5ths a person.
Is this quote part of the constitution? No, it’s not part of THE LAW.
[quote]
If blacks were not considered people then was it bestiality when a slave owner had sex with a slave? [/quote]
I don’t know or care what beastiality laws were on the books in late 17 early 1800s…
You love to talk about what THE LAW says, and the THE LAW says 3/5ths a person. It’s clear as day. I even posted it earlier.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It’s a given that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a human organism. [/quote]
How do you justify ending a human organisms’s life? [/quote]
You were in the military; how did/would you?
If you are talking specifically about abortion then “how do you” should be changed to “how does one.” The answer would be making a distinction between human organism and human being. A person is a human organism but a human organism is not necessarily a person.
The law does not read that way. It does not state a black and/or slave is 3/5ths of a person. That doesn’t even make sense. How is something 3/5ths of a human?
A visiting free white foreigner would have been counted as zero. Does that mean he was not considered a person?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You were in the military; how did/would you?
[/quote]
So a zygote/fetus is the same as an enemy combatant now…?
[quote]
If you are talking specifically about abortion then “how do you” should be changed to “how does one.” The answer would be making a distinction between human organism and human being. A person is a human organism but a human organism is not necessarily a person. [/quote]
Thanks for the English lesson.
When does a human organism magically become a human person?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You were in the military; how did/would you?
[/quote]
So a zygote/fetus is the same as an enemy combatant now…?
[quote]
If you are talking specifically about abortion then “how do you” should be changed to “how does one.” The answer would be making a distinction between human organism and human being. A person is a human organism but a human organism is not necessarily a person. [/quote]
Thanks for the English lesson.
When does a human organism magically become a human person?[/quote]
When the law says it does.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The law does not read that way. It does not state a black and/or slave is 3/5ths of a person. That doesn’t even make sense. How is something 3/5ths of a human?
[/quote]
The bottom line of Article I Section 2 is that slaves were counted as less than whites for representation.
Lol, it’s 3/5ths of a Person since personhood is this mystical thing there should be no problem here.
[quote]
A visiting free white foreigner would have been counted as zero. Does that mean he was not considered a person? [/quote]
He/She would no have been counted as “zero” he/she would not have been counted at all.