Posts: 11,090
Threads: 756
Joined: Sep 2012
The Founders never intended that.
Things the founders never intended:
Allowing woman to vote
Counting black people as greater than 3/5th of a regular European bred human
Don't get me started on their intentions toward Native Americans...
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 61
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2015
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"You guys are very good at making snide, infantile remarks"
Foxtrot Uniform?
Dimwit.
Yes, in return for calling me Sugartroll. Payback.
Posts: 61
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2015
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
The Founders never intended that.
Things the founders never intended:
Allowing woman to vote
Counting black people as greater than 3/5th of a regular European bred human
Don't get me started on their intentions toward Native Americans...
What a dimwit UR, and I'll prove it. History, that any child can look up, verifies that the 3/5 rule was to dilute the population count of the South for purposes of allocation of Members of House of Reps. If slaves were counted as 1, the population of the South, and hence the numbers of the Members of the House of Reps., would outnumber that of the NOrth, and the South would have outvoted the North on ending slavery.
Of course, you didn't know that, and probably never would if I hadn't told you. Right now you are calling me names because you don't believe it, you are laughing at me for saying it, but guess what, its true, and you are the ignorant bufoon.
Posts: 11,090
Threads: 756
Joined: Sep 2012
verifies that the 3/5 rule was to dilute the population count of the South for purposes of allocation of Members of House of Reps.
Yes, that's right. They intended to count black people as 3/5ths of a human in order to dilute the population count. I'm sure that made black people feel better. After working without pay all day they probably sat around the supper table and said to each other, "We might only count as 3/5ths of a person, but the founders didn't do it intentionally, they did it with good intentions. It was just for accounting purposes. See the difference? It's not at all like how the founders intended to keep womenfolk from voting. Cause that's something that really does make sense."
Sugarloaf, as the posts you make on this thread don't relate to Puna or Hawaii, which is one of the stipulations of this site, I'll say to you for now, aloha.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 998
Threads: 30
Joined: Feb 2012
quote:
I will give you the long answer, so you can see how simple the issue is.
In any society, people have rights, but they often come in conflict with other people and their rights. Also, some rights, like the right to life, are more important than other rights, such as speech or to vote. You can't kill somebody in order to exercise you right to speech. The higher order right must always prevail when two rights conflict.
In this case, you have the right of the woman to have a degree of control over her body, vs the right of the pre-born child to live. In such a conflict, the right of the pre-born child to live, trumps the right of the woman to control her body. After all, the baby is NOT part of her, it is it's own self merely living INSIDE her. For example, a person inside your house, isn't part of your house - he or she is merely INSIDE (but not part of, your house). Unless their is a definite near certainty that carrying and giving birth to the human being insider the mother will kill the mother, the right of the pre-born child to life, trumps.
It is the right of life, on one hand, to the right of convenience on the other. The pre-born child's rights are not diminished to any degree by the circumstances which brought about its exists. Infanticide is infanticide - period.
Now if you can abort, and preserve the right of the child, well go ahead, but remember, if you kill the child, it is murder.
You seem to be missing the point in that whole argument. That is who exactly has rights. To have rights, you must be a person. To be a person you must meet certain criteria. Under the law, a fetus does not meet the criteria for personhood. Various jurisdictions have slightly different interpretation but almost universally personhood isn't recognized until the third trimester. Not a person, not murder. Some ethicists have even gone as far as arguing that personhood is not attained until the age of two, but most consider that an extreme view.
Just call me Mike
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Posts: 2,490
Threads: 222
Joined: Dec 2005
Thank You AKpilot. Reminding us all again on how great planned parenthood is and that it's not just for what most republicans think it is.
The fact is, Abortion in the country is legal. The majority have spoken, no matter how far Right this nation gets it will remain legal. If you don't want one, Don't have one! No one is forcing you to have one. So stop trying to force others to not have one.
Also, suicide is legal in Oregon. I think a few other states have assisted suicide as well. Soon to be legal nationwide. Stop trying to force your views on others. We aren't telling you to not have one or have one. We are leaving that option for you own to figure out.
Most people with common sense side with leaving abortion on the table. It's the few like the ones we see in the park that are making it difficult for the rest of us that can still come to logical decision making process. Sure you can express your free rights all you want, but when the majority made has spoken and it's a done deal, and your the lone ranger out there every day trying to shove your views on others ... That isn't right.
Posts: 4,268
Threads: 98
Joined: Mar 2014
quote:
Originally posted by ericlp
...The fact is, Abortion in the country is legal. The majority have spoken, no matter how far Right this nation gets it will remain legal. If you don't want one, Don't have one! No one is forcing you to have one. So stop trying to force others to not have one.
Also, suicide is legal in Oregon. I think a few other states have assisted suicide as well. Soon to be legal nationwide. Stop trying to force your views on others. We aren't telling you to not have one or have one. We are leaving that option for you own to figure out...
...Sure you can express your free rights all you want, but when the majority made has spoken and it's a done deal, and your the lone ranger out there every day trying to shove your views on others ... That isn't right.
Forcing one's views upon others... sounds just like what liberals are doing with gay marriage, etc., right? Telling everyone else that they have to allow it? You are only tolerant if you agree with them...
Posts: 61
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2015
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
verifies that the 3/5 rule was to dilute the population count of the South for purposes of allocation of Members of House of Reps.
Yes, that's right. They intended to count black people as 3/5ths of a human in order to dilute the population count. I'm sure that made black people feel better. After working without pay all day they probably sat around the supper table and said to each other, "We might only count as 3/5ths of a person, but the founders didn't do it intentionally, they did it with good intentions. It was just for accounting purposes. See the difference? It's not at all like how the founders intended to keep womenfolk from voting. Cause that's something that really does make sense."
Sugarloaf, as the posts you make on this thread don't relate to Puna or Hawaii, which is one of the stipulations of this site, I'll say to you for now, aloha.
You left out the most important part. It was for the purpose of ending slavery - period. Do you have any idea how disingenuous it is to judge one group of people, living in a different era, with different norms, by your standards of your day? In any case, I fully support the Free-Speech rights of the gentleman. As far as the organization that M. Sanger created, she was a well known Racist, spoke often times before the Women's KKK advocating such measure, primarily, as a way to keep the black population under control. If you don't believe me, consult her autobiography. That would be the Biography about her that she wrote HERSELF, where she laid this all out, almost proudly. There have been hints of such purposes discussed in this very thread with references to Detroit, I believe it was. Once, again, I fully support the honorable Mr. Borden, and would even if I didn't believe in his cause, and I certainly don't advocate violence against him, as one malignant poster did in this thread. Aloooooha.
Posts: 61
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2015
quote:
Originally posted by VancouverIslander
quote:
I will give you the long answer, so you can see how simple the issue is.
In any society, people have rights, but they often come in conflict with other people and their rights. Also, some rights, like the right to life, are more important than other rights, such as speech or to vote. You can't kill somebody in order to exercise you right to speech. The higher order right must always prevail when two rights conflict.
In this case, you have the right of the woman to have a degree of control over her body, vs the right of the pre-born child to live. In such a conflict, the right of the pre-born child to live, trumps the right of the woman to control her body. After all, the baby is NOT part of her, it is it's own self merely living INSIDE her. For example, a person inside your house, isn't part of your house - he or she is merely INSIDE (but not part of, your house). Unless their is a definite near certainty that carrying and giving birth to the human being insider the mother will kill the mother, the right of the pre-born child to life, trumps.
It is the right of life, on one hand, to the right of convenience on the other. The pre-born child's rights are not diminished to any degree by the circumstances which brought about its exists. Infanticide is infanticide - period.
Now if you can abort, and preserve the right of the child, well go ahead, but remember, if you kill the child, it is murder.
You seem to be missing the point in that whole argument. That is who exactly has rights. To have rights, you must be a person. To be a person you must meet certain criteria. Under the law, a fetus does not meet the criteria for personhood. Various jurisdictions have slightly different interpretation but almost universally personhood isn't recognized until the third trimester. Not a person, not murder. Some ethicists have even gone as far as arguing that personhood is not attained until the age of two, but most consider that an extreme view.
Just call me Mike
Well,, unless you attack a women, leave her alive, but cause the death or her in-utero child, and get prosecuted for murder. Except, well, for that....... BTW, these abortions are taking places days, even hours before natural live childbirth would occur, largely as a way to raise money for the Planned Infanticide organization performing them.
|
