Why is abortion the way of the world?

[H B Lowrie]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

You think modern america doesn't practice human sacrifice? Please.

 

[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".

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.

I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't understand, is the Constitution saying that not all human organisms are "persons" entitled to the equal protections of our laws or not?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't understand, is the Constitution saying that not all human organisms are "persons" entitled to the equal protections of our laws or not?

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

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Seemingly inclusive enough to include any human organisms that are (three fifths) viewed by some as less than whole.

 

[alang1216]

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

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Seemingly inclusive enough to include any human organisms that are (three fifths) viewed by some as less than whole.

Actually it says all "men", quite a bit less inclusive than all "persons". It could have said all men, women, and children regardless of race or religion. But it didn't.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Seemingly inclusive enough to include any human organisms that are (three fifths) viewed by some as less than whole.

Actually it says all "men", quite a bit less inclusive than all "persons". It could have said all men, women, and children regardless of race or religion. But it didn't.

Read the 5th and 14rh Amendments.

Show me where it says "men only."

 

[BlueGin]

If we are going to embrace barbarity, go all in and start killing women. Particularly young virgins. More primitive cultures killed women than sacrificed children.

Eventually that will happen. If they can sign murder into law with open defiance, there is no limit to their thirst for blood.

Especially when they start relaxing safety standards in abortion clinics and allowing non medical personnel to perform them...oh wait.

 

[alang1216]

Read the 5th and 14rh Amendments.

Show me where it says "men only."

These do refer to "persons", however in the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the 5th and 14rh Amendments.

Show me where it says "men only."

These do refer to "persons", however in the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

Read the 14th just a little more closely.

Let me know when you catch your mistake.

 

[alang1216]

Read the 14th just a little more closely.

Let me know when you catch your mistake.

Like many sections it is open to different interpretations. My interpretation being different from yours does not constitute a 'mistake' on my part.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read the 14th just a little more closely.

Let me know when you catch your mistake.

Like many sections it is open to different interpretations. My interpretation being different from yours does not constitute a 'mistake' on my part.

The undocumented (illegal aliens) who are everday crossing into our country illegally. . .

Are THEY citizens of the U.S.?

What do you suppose protects them from being shot dead as they try to cross?

 

[alang1216]

The undocumented (illegal aliens) who are everday crossing into our country illegally. . .

Are THEY citizens of the U.S.?

What do you suppose protects them from being shot dead as they try to cross?

There are probably many reasons they are not shot dead: our humanity, international law, etc. However, I don't know of any Constitutional protections they have.

 

[Chuz Life]

The undocumented (illegal aliens) who are everday crossing into our country illegally. . .

Are THEY citizens of the U.S.?

What do you suppose protects them from being shot dead as they try to cross?

There are probably many reasons they are not shot dead: our humanity, international law, etc. However, I don't know of any Constitutional protections they have.

Google it.

 

[alang1216]

The undocumented (illegal aliens) who are everday crossing into our country illegally. . .

Are THEY citizens of the U.S.?

What do you suppose protects them from being shot dead as they try to cross?

There are probably many reasons they are not shot dead: our humanity, international law, etc. However, I don't know of any Constitutional protections they have.

Google it.

If you refer to the gov't doing the shooting, I stand by my answer. If you refer to a private citizen doing the shooting, that is a very different issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

The undocumented (illegal aliens) who are everday crossing into our country illegally. . .

Are THEY citizens of the U.S.?

What do you suppose protects them from being shot dead as they try to cross?

There are probably many reasons they are not shot dead: our humanity, international law, etc. However, I don't know of any Constitutional protections they have.

Google it.

If you refer to the gov't doing the shooting, I stand by my answer. If you refer to a private citizen doing the shooting, that is a very different issue.

Are you claiming that U.S. citizens can legally just pick off illegals as they cross the border?

 

[alang1216]

Are you claiming that U.S. citizens can legally just pick off illegals as they cross the border?

Can they be summarily executed? No.

However, if you are a soldier and the illegals are declared enemy combatants they can be engaged under the international rules of combat.

 

[Chuz Life]

You said:

. . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

The facts are:
"In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history."

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

 

[alang1216]

You said:

. . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

Yes all persons have constitutional rights. Illegal aliens just do not have the same rights as a person who is a US citizen. Not all persons are treated equally under the law.

 

[Chuz Life]

You said:

. . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

Yes all persons have constitutional rights. Illegal aliens just do not have the same rights as a person who is a US citizen. Not all persons are treated equally under the law.

How do you reconcile that fact with what you said earlier?

". . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protectiotions"

 

[alang1216]

You said:

. . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protections.

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

Yes all persons have constitutional rights. Illegal aliens just do not have the same rights as a person who is a US citizen. Not all persons are treated equally under the law.

How do you reconcile that fact with what you said earlier?

". . . the 14th reserves its' protections for citizens born (or naturalized) in the US. Seems clear when you are eligible for legal protectiotions"

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, there are two points to make about the constitution and the society that created and evolved with it.

First, it recognizes that, even though we are all persons, not all persons are entitled to the same rights. To me that says that, even if we consider a fertilized egg to be a person, we are not required by the constitution to treat it the same as an adult.

Secondly, the 14th amendment of the constitution seems to imply that until you are born you are not a citizen and don't get the protections of a citizen. What protections you do get before birth, if any, are not mentioned.

 

[Dana7360]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

If it's a "complete organism" and a "child" then treat it as such.

Remove it from the woman's body so that complete organism is a child all on its own. Like all human life on this planet.

If it can't survive without being attached to a woman's uterus, it's not viable human life.

Period.

I keep asking those anti choice people if a fertilized egg is human life explain an ectopic pregnancy. That fertilized egg will never become a human being. All that fertilized egg will do is kill the woman if an abortion is performed.

I've never gotten a reply from anti choice people about ectopic pregnancies. I guess they just don't want to admit that a fertilized egg isn't a human being.