1 edit
Originally posted by whodeythere is no reference, this is just my beliefs and who i think will live up to them the fullest. i also think these teen baby murders should not be put to death by pills/electrical chair.
Is this an exact quote from Palin and company or are you interpreting for them? I would like to see your reference.
both hanging and beheading have worked wonders for years. why the recent shift?? all these sensitive stuff is being controlled by the liberal media these days..
Originally posted by no1marauderOk then, there are no official documents or laws equating them as livestock, rather, they were just treated as such. Yep, that makes all the difference, no?
We've been through this many times and your claim is false and worse, you know it. Slaves were never considered "livestock" or not human beings. By contrast, never have fetuses been considered human beings under the law for any purpose.
Try to remember that THIS TIME.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe founder of Planned Parenthood and its eugenic movement are unimportant? It better by if you support them. 😉
Margaret Sanger's alleged beliefs are irrelevant.
You know eugenics used to be socially acceptable until Hitler and his ilk gave it a bad name. Funny how no one seems to link eugenics and abortion together though.
2 edits
Originally posted by irontigranActually I think these women should be rounded up and forced to watch 100 hours of Sarah Palin interviews, but that's just me. It's barbaric I know. You are much more tolerant than I.
there is no reference, this is just my beliefs and who i think will live up to them the fullest. i also think these teen baby murders should not be put to death by pills/electrical chair.
both hanging and beheading have worked wonders for years. why the recent shift?? all these sensitive stuff is being controlled by the liberal media these days..
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyMore idiocy. Can a cow become a citizen of the US?
Ok then, there are no official documents or laws equating them as livestock, rather, they were just treated as such. Yep, that makes all the difference, no?
The Framers were perfectly aware that slaves were human beings. There were various rationales to justify slavery, but none included the argument that slaves weren't human. Your persistent claim to the contrary is just plain wrong.
EDIT: In fact a primary justification for slavery in the South became "Noah's curse" based on Genesis 9:25, since it was believed that black Africans were descendents of Ham. Thank goodness in the 21st century we don't base our societal laws on religious beliefs!
Originally posted by whodeyThey're unimportant also (since Margaret Sanger is long dead and eugenics is not the reason why criminal laws against abortion are forbidden) but when I use the word "irrelevant" I mean that word and not another one. What Margaret Sanger believed 100 years ago has no bearing on the issue we are discussing which is whether a government based on Natural Rights theory can possibly have a legitimate power to forbid women (under pain of penal punishment) from deciding to terminate their pregnancy.
The founder of Planned Parenthood and its eugenic movement are unimportant? It better by if you support them. 😉
You know eugenics used to be socially acceptable until Hitler and his ilk gave it a bad name. Funny how no one seems to link eugenics and abortion together though.
Playing the Hitler card is a bit bizarre; Nazi Germany had very strong anti-abortion laws (unsurprising since their ideology, like yours, rejected Natural Rights theory)
Originally posted by no1marauderSo lets compare and contrast slavery in the OT and in the deep south. Where white men used as slaves in the deep south? It seems to me that only blacks were rounded up from Africa and shipped to the US for cheap labor. In fact, you may want to write a letter to the NAACP and let the know that blacks were just as equal as their white counterparts in the deep south and see what they have to say about it. As always though, you are studying the letter of the law rather than studying how these people were treated. They may have been viewed as human beings under the law but were by no means equals to their white counterparts. If you like, we could refer to them as sub-human if it pleases you.
More idiocy. Can a cow become a citizen of the US?
The Framers were perfectly aware that slaves were human beings. There were various rationales to justify slavery, but none included the argument that slaves weren't human. Your persistent claim to the contrary is just plain wrong.
EDIT: In fact a primary justification for slavery in ...[text shortened]... m. Thank goodness in the 21st century we don't base our societal laws on religious beliefs!
In contrast, slavery in OT times was simply a means through which someone could survive if faced with hard economic times. It had nothing to do with race nor did it have anything to do with exploiting them to make someone rich. In addition, slaves in the OT were afforded rights and set free after so many years of service.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't blame you for wanting to distance the founder from the movement. There is no defending her is there?
[b]They're unimportant also (since Margaret Sanger is long dead and eugenics is not the reason why criminal laws against abortion are forbidden) but when I use the word "irrelevant" I mean that word and not another one. What Margaret Sanger believed 100 years ago has no bearing on the issue we are discussing which is whether a government based on Natural Ri ...[text shortened]... ower to forbid women (under pain of penal punishment) from deciding to terminate their pregnancy.
Originally posted by whodeyLet's not since it is irrelevant to your claim that African slaves in the US were not considered human. They were so you should simply admit your error.
So lets compare and contrast slavery in the OT and in the deep south. Where white men used as slaves in the deep south? It seems to me that only blacks were rounded up from Africa and shipped to the US for cheap labor. In fact, you may want to write a letter to the NAACP and let the know that blacks were just as equal as their white counterparts in the de ...[text shortened]... In addition, slaves in the OT were afforded rights and set free after so many years of service.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour point about the mother's self-autonomy is a good one. But it only stands if you make the leap that the kid in that picture is not human, and therefore has no rights of his own. You know it, and so you won't answer the question.
Your emotional hysteria is comical.
My point regarding the very basic right of self-autonomy stands. Do you have an argument to produce against it?
You (and apparently ATY) write this off as an irrational appeal to emotion, but I think that is unforgivable laziness on your part, being that there is always a life hanging in the balance. Somebody tell me how a rational person can look at that picture and conclude that it is not a human being.
So c'mon No1. Don't be lazy. Look at the picture. Is this a human being? Could you kill it with no moral pangs?
http://www.pregnancy.org/images/pregnancy/pregnancycalendar/22weeks177x267.jpg
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI can't kill a fly without moral pangs because it, like everything else, is a living part of the One Without a Second. But that's me.
Your point about the mother's self-autonomy is a good one. But it only stands if you make the leap that the kid in that picture is not human, and therefore has no rights of his own. You know it, and so you won't answer the question.
You (and apparently ATY) write this off as an irrational appeal to emotion, but I think that is unforgivable laziness on ral pangs?
http://www.pregnancy.org/images/pregnancy/pregnancycalendar/22weeks177x267.jpg