Amber

The conspiracy theory is false. 

"Owning a gun is correlated with lower intelligence..."

@<<<Amber>>>

Human rights begin at birth. Not any time before that.

@<<<Amber>>>

"Human rights begin at birth." So with that said, that should end all debate about abortion.

 It does not matter if a human fetus could survive outside the womb, if the mother wants it dead she should be able to kill it.

Amber is TWS in drag.

Amber,

I am not interested in random stories

Amber,

I am not interested in random stories. I prefer statistical research that includes all numbers, like this one:

"Today, immigrants are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white, the study finds. And when the analysis is expanded to include Black Americans — whose prison rates are higher than the general population — the likelihood of an immigrant being incarcerated is 60 percent lower than of people born in the United States."

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debunking-myth-migrant-crime-wave

that first generation born to illegals commit a disproportionate amount of crime. 

Another name for these people is American citizens.

How many of you think Amber is not banned user TWS pretending to be a little girl (or woman with kids, whichever)?

It's obviously him, right? I mean, even if we're not going to do anything about it, it's fucking funny, right?

Come on. 

At publishing time, the Harris campaign had accused Trump of offering a tissue to a crying widow.

He shouldn't have filmed it.

->

@<<<Amber>>>

There was nothing "legal" about the extermination of the Jews. It was a military occupation and eradication of groups of people the tyrant dictator didn't like. There was no one to stop him until the US and Russia got involved. 

In Germany in WWII, Nazi's were leading politically. That means they could establish laws in Germany. Since it was permitted for Nazis to kill Jews, by Germany's standards it was legal. 

Also, what happened in Germany in WWII has absolutely no comparative value to the abortion topic. 

Apparently, it does, because that's how far our conversation got. 

There you go again with the use of a misnomer. A pregnancy is not a child. 

Is it a fetus? 

If so, what does the word fetus mean?

Fetus: Offspring

According to various data sources like the Guttmacher Institute and CDC, before RvW was invalidated, less than 1.2% of all abortions performed in any given year happen when the fetus is viable.

Cool. Your point is?

Yet forcing a female to be your personal incubator to satisfy your feelings of morality is less morally wrong????

Unless it's a case of rape, no one is forcing the woman to be an incubator of a human life. 

And in a case of rape, it's not me forcing them, it's the rapist. And like I said rapists should be castrated and killed. 

And? Every cell within the human organism meets the same basic biological criteria for life as the zygote, blastocyst, etc. Same for gametes too. Skin cells too, and each time you go out in the sun and get burned, you're terminating a living human cell(s). 

Does my skin cell have the potential for growing into a child? 

Yeah, they are not the same at all. 

And if the pregnancy is a risk to the life of the female, it is self-defense and survival of the fittest to terminate the pregnancy. She can always try again. 

Glad you brought this up. Do you know there is literally a 0.005 percent chance that an abortion will ever be necessary to save the mother. There is only one case where it is absolutely necessary. And in those cases, I think we can make exceptions obviously. 

Really? A defective fetus at 3 months with the high probability of killing the pregnant female is a dangerous way to determine the value of the pregnancy???

Yes, a defective child at 3 months old with the high probability of killing the mother is a dangerous way to determine the value of the human being. 

Seems weird that so many are “pro-life” without first being pro quality of life.

When discussing  a pro abortion position you have to clarify which position you are arguing from. Are you arguing from the stand point of when life begins or human when  rights begin. Science clearly states life begins at conception this is indisputable. Well you can dispute it but you would be arguing all of science is wrong and only you are right.   So that only leaves the arbitrary opinion of when human rights begin. Pick your arbitrary time from conception to time of birth as to when individual human rights begin. That's the abortion debate.

There is a difference between abortion being morally justified and legal abortion. Abortion can be morally wrong, but legal.

Yes. Just like the extermination of Jews, by the Nazis was technically "legal" in that area at that time. 

I don't believe that society determines right or wrong, so yes you are right, but I am talking about morals.

This is because abortion being illegal can cause even more harm, even if abortion itself is morally wrong.

I think preventing the slaughter of millions of children annually would prevent harm, not create more. 

There are also different cases where abortion is more or less morally justified, like defects, late term abortions...

I believe abortion by definition, (human abortion) is morally wrong. 

Because by definition, it is the termination of a living human organism.

Now obviously there are cases where killing humas is justified, like self-defense. I believe that is the only time it is justified to kill another human. 

And abortion is not self-defense. 

Lives lived in pain and non-liberty have lower quality value compared to lives lived in liberty and non-pain.

I fundamentally disagree. 

When calculating saving lives, life of a doctor becomes more important than life of criminal, disabled or low ability.

I again, fundamentally disagree. 

Life of a healthy fetus at 8 months is more valuable than life of defective fetus at 3 months.

Thats a dangerous way to determine value. 

@WyIted

Most Democrats don’t state this out loud but it is their strategy for reducing the crime rate. What's wrong with that?

I'm going to assume that this is sarcastically rhetorical, but in the case that it's not, genocide is wrong.

-->

@Swagnarok

At the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus. During this stage, the structures that have already formed grow and develop. The following are markers during pregnancy:

• By 12 weeks of pregnancy: The fetus fills the entire uterus.
  
• By about 14 weeks: The sex can be identified.
  
• By about 16 to 20 weeks: Typically, the pregnant woman can feel the fetus moving. Women who have been pregnant before typically feel movements about 2 weeks earlier than women who are pregnant for the first time.
  
• By about 24 weeks: The fetus has a chance of survival outside the uterus.
  

It’s perfectly acceptable to have an abortion after 8 weeks up til about 20 weeks.

Abortions after 22 weeks are extremely rare and involve the life and health of the mother.

As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about so MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!

 Migrants

Migrants have lower crime rate than general population. Migrants reduce crime rate, increase workforce, help low birth rates.

-->

@Double_R

I watched your video, and it did a terrible job at steelmanning the argument and a great job at confirming your bias.

If you were looking for enlightenment, that video wasn't it.

->

@<<<Amber>>>

@CatholicApologetics

Would either of you be interested in mafia?

@<<<Amber>>>

I did not admit "her relative was a slave," damn your lack of reading comprehension knows no bounds. 

Indians from India have been slaves too. Indians from India were taken to other continents under British control ya know! 

Yes, India is in the Asian geographical area, but Indians are NOT "Asians" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), so stop with the obfuscation. 

Sorry, that was confusing on my part. The Asian thing was a joke.

My point was that if you were a slave in the Caribbean, then you are about 99.999999999% of the time, black. Her great grandmother or something was listed as a slave, so that means she was probably black.

No, direct personal evidence is better than "anecdotal evidence." Judge Brown met, talked to, and heard it straight from the horses mouth.

See, the problem with that is that he didn’t actually hear anything, and that’s the point. 

In the video he said that he never knew that her father was black, not that her father said he wasn’t black.

And again, that’s not good grounds for evidence. I can say that any person I ever met was any race I wanted, but that wouldn’t make them that race. It’s not evidence, it’s hearsay.

Not that it doesn’t hold some weight, it just doesn’t hold a lot.

Where did Judge Brown say he met the guy "on a few occasions"?

It's firsthand knowledge. It's not "casual" knowledge. It's direct knowledge. 

Therefore, it is NOT 'anecdotal.'

It’s not direct, because it’s through somebody else.

No, I would not. He knows him personally. Within the definition of hearsay (note, correct spelling here), it is clear that "Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness," and yet Judge Brown has 'personal knowledge of" what Professor Harris told him directly.

Well that’s the thing, he wasn’t super clear on that, but I took it to mean that they had just met each other.

Still when it comes down to it, it’s hearsay from somebody who didn’t hear contradictory to him being black, he just never heard him actually say that he was black.

I’ll take the semi-spotty family history.

But she has a lot of baggage with her.

i'm not sure what you mean by that. But I guarantee you JD vance's baggage is much more damaging. 

@<<<Amber>>>

Judge Joe Brown met her father and explains it clearly

Again with this anecdotal evidence. I go looking through the actual record, or lack thereof, and you find one guy who met her father on a few occasions. 

Wrong. That's a term meant 'apprentice' and was given to emancipated slaves and were paid for their labor.

You just used the word “emancipated”. You admitted that her relative was a slave, which basically means she was black, unless I’m forgetting about all the Asian slaves they had in the Caribbean.

Pure speculation that is equally full of holes and discrepancies. You're just repeating the nonsense annotated in that source.

Yes, the records are spotty, but they’re much better than anecdotal evidence, and they do point in the direction of her being black, so even though we can’t know for sure, we can make an educated guess.

Not according to Judge Brown who knew the man personally and got the info about him straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.

If we were in court right now, you would be called out for heresay so fast right now. I have enough evidence to make an educated guess, and you have anecdotal heresay.

IWRA ~ 

-->

@WyIted

Trump continually debates in enemy territory and fox is neutral towards Trump at best. 

lol, no, that’s not true.