“When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made.”

[Katzndogz]

One other thing I would like to point out that in this day of contraception (of which is so easily available and cheap) there really is no excuse to use abortion as a "birth control" device....get where I am coming from?

Good birth control isn't cheap. You have to go to the doctor and have tests before you can get your prescription. If you're a poor woman, with no access to Planned Parenthood, or other basically free medical care, you can't afford the $300 for the appointment and tests, so you use less reliable methods.

There are lots of women who can't take oral contraceptives. I know because I'm one of them, as is one of my daughters. My other daughter is allergic to latex, so her husband can't use condoms. There are all kinds of reasons why birth control pills are just not an option, and other methods are less reliable.

And regardless of what method you use, it doesn't always work. Half the women who had abortions, used birth control the month they got pregnant.

Now the Supreme Court has ruled that employers who don't believe in birth control, like the Catholic Church, don't have to have this covered in health care insurance for their employees. I say it's none of their damn business whether I get birth control with my health care. It's my health care and my employer doesn't get a say in it. All health care policies should cover birth control for both men and women.

Are you trying to say there are no latex free condoms?

Trojan™ Supra™ Bareskin™ Condoms – America's Thinnest Condom

 

[Dragonlady]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

If they can't afford it, guess they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If a baby deserves to be born into a loving family, guess people not ready for them shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

If they fail to accept responsibility for their actions, they should put it up for adoption.

You've now outed yourself as a person who doesn't believe in individual responsibility.

You've also outed yourself as a person who believes a child should be murdered rather than being put up for adoption.

Also, link to statistics.

A fetus is not a child. It's potentially a child, and it's not murder.

The problem isn't the baby, it's the pregnancy. Poor women with children at home can be fired just for being pregnant. Or if their job involves work that is difficult or dangerous for a pregnant woman, they won't be put on safe duty, they'll just be let go. They can't afford to be fired, so having the baby and giving it up for adoption, isn't an option. Job protections for pregnant women would help, but Republicans, who oppose abortion, won't pass any legislation to protect the jobs of pregnant women.

Here's a link to the statistics you asked for:

Induced Abortion in the United States

 

[Papageorgio]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

Got a link?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Weatherman2020]

The top court in this state could sack this judge who keeps refusing to marry gays

Yup, like its time to get another job you backward bigot.

It's why we left you aholes.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

Got a link?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Induced Abortion in the United States

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

If they can't afford it, guess they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If a baby deserves to be born into a loving family, guess people not ready for them shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

If they fail to accept responsibility for their actions, they should put it up for adoption.

You've now outed yourself as a person who doesn't believe in individual responsibility.

You've also outed yourself as a person who believes a child should be murdered rather than being put up for adoption.

Also, link to statistics.

A fetus is not a child. It's potentially a child, and it's not murder.

The problem isn't the baby, it's the pregnancy. Poor women with children at home can be fired just for being pregnant. Or if their job involves work that is difficult or dangerous for a pregnant woman, they won't be put on safe duty, they'll just be let go. They can't afford to be fired, so having the baby and giving it up for adoption, isn't an option. Job protections for pregnant women would help, but Republicans, who oppose abortion, won't pass any legislation to protect the jobs of pregnant women.

Here's a link to the statistics you asked for:

Induced Abortion in the United States

A fetus is not a child. It's potentially a child, and it's not murder.

It's murder.

Poor women with children at home can be fired just for being pregnant.

It's against the law.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

If they can't afford it, guess they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If a baby deserves to be born into a loving family, guess people not ready for them shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

If they fail to accept responsibility for their actions, they should put it up for adoption.

You've now outed yourself as a person who doesn't believe in individual responsibility.

You've also outed yourself as a person who believes a child should be murdered rather than being put up for adoption.

Also, link to statistics.

You are an extremist. It is difficult to take your views seriously.I doubt that anybody takes these decisions lightly and the last thing they need is some self righteous religious extremist lecturing them.

Find one single post where I say I have any sort of religious faith.

I also fail to see how being against murder makes any sort of extremist. Perhaps the person who calls everyone a Nazi, yet advocates the murder of millions of children should elaborate on this 'extremism'?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

If they can't afford it, guess they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If a baby deserves to be born into a loving family, guess people not ready for them shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

If they fail to accept responsibility for their actions, they should put it up for adoption.

You've now outed yourself as a person who doesn't believe in individual responsibility.

You've also outed yourself as a person who believes a child should be murdered rather than being put up for adoption.

Also, link to statistics.

A fetus is not a child. It's potentially a child, and it's not murder.

The problem isn't the baby, it's the pregnancy. Poor women with children at home can be fired just for being pregnant. Or if their job involves work that is difficult or dangerous for a pregnant woman, they won't be put on safe duty, they'll just be let go. They can't afford to be fired, so having the baby and giving it up for adoption, isn't an option. Job protections for pregnant women would help, but Republicans, who oppose abortion, won't pass any legislation to protect the jobs of pregnant women.

Here's a link to the statistics you asked for:

Induced Abortion in the United States

No, it's definitely a child, it's a stage of growth. The moment of conception, it is a child, and it is a living thing. Even if it's not, people can avoid having them by not sleeping with anyone. If it can cost them their job, they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. You don't seem to understand the concept of keeping your legs closed. It's not as though people die if they aren't sleeping with someone. On the other hand, thanks to Liberals, people DO die if you sleep with someone willy nilly now.

 

[GLASNOST]

Condoms this and condoms that. They have a purpose ... for some. But the purpose of condoms is purely related to an ejaculation. I'd rather "jerk off" than put on a condom. If I were back in Burkina Faso again, and this time I really, really, really had to pluck that woman who wanted to come with me to my room, then yes .... I'm sure I would use a condom. But in serious life you can forget it. I never use a condom with my wife. What would be the point? If I cannot enjoy her body to the fullest then I'd rather abstain and pull myself off. Masturbation is better than sex with a condom.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

According to the writing of the Constitution, they are all state level things. That you support federal level application of them proves what I said about you picking and choosing. Thanks for the proof.

I admit we pick and choose, same way Republicans in Michigan don't like that we voted to legalize pot so Republicans here are using federal law as their reason for fighting the will of the people. Go figure.

The argumentss you lose are because your state laws are deemed unconstitutional, no?

So you are a hypocrite? Just as I thought.

If your States laws are unconstitutional it's up to the feds to get you in line. That's your problem. You want to be unconstitutional in your laws.

When we (the feds) tell you what to do its because you want to be unconstitutional. But then you want to cherry pick out of the constitution the part that says States rights? Do you see how you're wrong?

View attachment 85591

Allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

It grants special privileges to a specific minority group while ignoring the same rights to other minority groups that deserve the same rights.

A clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

*****SMILE*****

If you ask, you'll find that those supporting same sex marriage because, in their words, the government should not be able to deny consenting adults the ability to marry because others don't like it opposing consenting adults from marrying because they don't like certain kinds. Unless they're willing to support ALL marriages between consenting adults whether they agree with them or not, they're hypocritical and about nothing more than an unconstitutional agenda.

That is my point...

ALL mature willing companions should be allowed to arrange their marriage groups, which means there may be more than two involved in the marriage group, any way they choose so long as ALL involved are mature willing companions.

Anything less is a violation of the 14th Amendment if we are going to allow mature willing companions to marry.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Igrok_]

U

Choice is obvious: to follow the religion, because the law is just the reflection of it. Religion forms the minds, whilst law reflects them. If you want to be ahead of the progress - follow the religion.

End.

ntil your religion conflicts with law then law always wins. This is why mitt Romney's grandfather moved to Mexico. We wouldn't let him have more than one wife.

And when your church asks, "do you renounce Satan?" I don't. Because you have to believe in Satan to do that.

what the devil has to do here? When law is against religion it always fails, in case of christianity, i mean.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

If they can't afford it, guess they shouldn't be sleeping with anyone. If a baby deserves to be born into a loving family, guess people not ready for them shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.

If they fail to accept responsibility for their actions, they should put it up for adoption.

You've now outed yourself as a person who doesn't believe in individual responsibility.

You've also outed yourself as a person who believes a child should be murdered rather than being put up for adoption.

Also, link to statistics.

A fetus is not a child. It's potentially a child, and it's not murder.

The problem isn't the baby, it's the pregnancy. Poor women with children at home can be fired just for being pregnant. Or if their job involves work that is difficult or dangerous for a pregnant woman, they won't be put on safe duty, they'll just be let go. They can't afford to be fired, so having the baby and giving it up for adoption, isn't an option. Job protections for pregnant women would help, but Republicans, who oppose abortion, won't pass any legislation to protect the jobs of pregnant women.

Here's a link to the statistics you asked for:

Induced Abortion in the United States

Since your stance is that it is not a child, in other words it's more or less a tumor, then you won't mind that any sort of maternity compensation (easier work assignments) or maternity leave/time is denied to any employee who has the fetus aborted and that they now fall under the category of simply being a sick or unwell employee. Which means that if they had received any benefits from their place of work related to maternity they need to pay the place of business back.

*****SMILE*****

 

[sealybobo]

U

Choice is obvious: to follow the religion, because the law is just the reflection of it. Religion forms the minds, whilst law reflects them. If you want to be ahead of the progress - follow the religion.

End.

ntil your religion conflicts with law then law always wins. This is why mitt Romney's grandfather moved to Mexico. We wouldn't let him have more than one wife.

And when your church asks, "do you renounce Satan?" I don't. Because you have to believe in Satan to do that.

what the devil has to do here? When law is against religion it always fails, in case of christianity, i mean.

Well you better get to debating because on debate.org 100% say you are wrong

Can religious beliefs overrule government policies and laws?

 

[Papageorgio]

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

That's always what it comes down to, isn't it.

Over half of the women who obtain legal abortions, are married or in a committed relationship. They are not "sleeping around". More than half the women having abortions already have one or more children, and 75% of women having abortions cite financial circumstances as the reason they are getting an abortion. 80% of the women obtaining abortions have an income below the poverty line, or just above it.

You have now outed yourself as someone who views a baby as some sort of punishment for immoral women. Children deserve to be born into a family where they are wanted, loved, and your parents can provide for you. Any man who says that a woman needs to keep her legs closed, implies that the relationship was casual or meaningless. The overwhelming evidence is that these women are married or committed, and that they are poor.

So come up with a better reason for stripping these women of their rights.

Got a link?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Induced Abortion in the United States

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.According to your link, you are not exactly correct. In 2014, some 46% of all abortion patients had never married and were not cohabiting. The other 54% may or my not been in a relationship. Cloudy language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sure if you can get that passed into secular law sure.

To those of us who are pro choice, life just isn't that precious. Not in the first trimester.

And I wouldnt murder a retarded baby but I would get a late term abortion if I was having a severely retarded baby. You may choose to have and raise that baby but if you decided not to that would not be murder. Even though technically you are killing someone.

I know you don't like reality but trust me our fetus' didn't feel a thing.

Is it a good thing? Of course not. In a perfect world there would be no abortion.

Is the morning after pill murder?

"Pro-choice" is an inaccurate title, since it's used to describe one who advocates taking away the choice of another human being.

I talk to a lot of women who are personally pro life but are pro choice. They aren't vagina Nazis like you

What you just said has nothing to do with what I pointed out.

That's your choice. I'm pro choice. If you feel the seed in my womb is a life your free to feel that way but I'm free to disagree and it's my body so you'll never win the argument even if I'm personally pro life.

You aren't pro life you're anti choice

It's not anti-choice if I'm supporting the choice of the child, and its constitutional right to life. It's also factually a life, as the child is living at the moment of conception. Sperm have a life, and assuming it suddenly doesn't after combining with the egg is outright silly.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's just too easy to get pregnant and too big of a commitment to tell someone who accidentally gets pregnant they have to birth it. Utterly ridiculous

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

Who are you? Talk about big government controlling our lives.

And your punishment is to force them to have a human they can't afford and don't want

They can put it up for adoption. You know, or just don't sleep around.

It's not controlling their lives if it's just preventing murder. Nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others.

But it is the view of Leftists....Liberals/Democrats.....that human beings are no different from lower animals, and, thus, have the same lack of morality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fetuses. Let me guess, you're a middle-aged or elderly white male steeped in religion and believe your specific religious beliefs should be forced upon all, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. I'm all for hindering late-term abortions, unless it threatens the mother's life; on the other hand, while it's still just a clump of cells (living or not), it's not in a state of being a sentient. To say otherwise would be to say that every cell in your body is a sentient being and in that case, allowing blood to be drawn would be the equivalent of murder to each of those living red-blood cells, white-blood cells, et cetera. The only individual with the right to make the choice to have a baby is the one who would be carrying it for nine months; not some middle-aged or elderly guy spouting his religious crap.

I never used the word sentient, and all of your assumptions are false. Tell me, would you like if you were aborted? I kinda like living.

Seems to me, in most cases, the choice to have a baby coincides with the choice to keep your legs closed.

That last statement clearly shows that you place the blame and responsibility on the woman, rather than on the aggressive males that coax and push them into sex. The males are the physically stronger and are almost always the ones to push for sex. Your pushing the responsibility on the woman shows your knuckle-dragging misogynist mentality.
If I had been aborted, that would have been my parents decision and I would have not existed to know either way. No big deal.

Had you been aborted, that would be your parent's decision what to do with you, a separate person.

Your twisting of my words only shows you're incapable of proper debate. I specifically said "in most cases". If a woman is forced into sex, it's called rape. The fact is, outside of rape, it's the woman's decision. A woman can allow herself to be talked/coaxed into it, but that still takes her relenting. If a woman gets herself drunk, that's her own fault also. Impairing one's senses is a decision one makes for themselves. When someone takes an action, they are accepting the consequences of said action, and if you're not prepared for those consequences, it's on you. Aborting a child is forcing someone else to take the consequences of your actions upon themselves.

In other words, it takes two to tango.

It's just too easy to get pregnant and too big of a commitment to tell someone who accidentally gets pregnant they have to birth it. Utterly ridiculous

If you're not willing to have a child, you shouldn't be sleeping around.

Responsibility and self-control have no place in the Liberal constellation.

This, from Obama's choice for science adviser:

"Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

"Pro-choice" is an inaccurate title, since it's used to describe one who advocates taking away the choice of another human being.

I talk to a lot of women who are personally pro life but are pro choice. They aren't vagina Nazis like you

What you just said has nothing to do with what I pointed out.

That's your choice. I'm pro choice. If you feel the seed in my womb is a life your free to feel that way but I'm free to disagree and it's my body so you'll never win the argument even if I'm personally pro life.

You aren't pro life you're anti choice

It's not anti-choice if I'm supporting the choice of the child, and its constitutional right to life. It's also factually a life, as the child is living at the moment of conception. Sperm have a life, and assuming it suddenly doesn't after combining with the egg is outright silly.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

But that was written by slave owners and so is prime hypocrisy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I talk to a lot of women who are personally pro life but are pro choice. They aren't vagina Nazis like you

What you just said has nothing to do with what I pointed out.

That's your choice. I'm pro choice. If you feel the seed in my womb is a life your free to feel that way but I'm free to disagree and it's my body so you'll never win the argument even if I'm personally pro life.

You aren't pro life you're anti choice

It's not anti-choice if I'm supporting the choice of the child, and its constitutional right to life. It's also factually a life, as the child is living at the moment of conception. Sperm have a life, and assuming it suddenly doesn't after combining with the egg is outright silly.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

But that was written by slave owners and so is prime hypocrisy.

America's Founders were abolitionists.


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What you just said has nothing to do with what I pointed out.

That's your choice. I'm pro choice. If you feel the seed in my womb is a life your free to feel that way but I'm free to disagree and it's my body so you'll never win the argument even if I'm personally pro life.

You aren't pro life you're anti choice

It's not anti-choice if I'm supporting the choice of the child, and its constitutional right to life. It's also factually a life, as the child is living at the moment of conception. Sperm have a life, and assuming it suddenly doesn't after combining with the egg is outright silly.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

But that was written by slave owners and so is prime hypocrisy.

America's Founders were abolitionists.


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Slave owning wankers.