Total posts: 2,186
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Huh?
Try writing in English. Your retort was rubbish.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Go back and read my original comment with that cited law and who I replied to. Then look at their comment as it relates to the content and context of my post with the cited law. There you will find your answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The status quo in America is that white people own nearly everything and maintain the power.
Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Troll 🧌
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
What is your intent to provide the cited laws????
Really? 🤦♂️
If you have to ask, you’re never going to understand it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Uh, it has nothing to do with getting my own way…like getting 🍕 instead of 🌮 . 🙄
When another epically fails to comprehend that which they read, cherry picks parts to rebut (usually with a strawman), retorts sophomorically, and/or just throws pompous condescension (like you often do)…you reap what you sow regarding my apt observations and apropos use of adjectives to describe the observed behavior, demeanor, and attitude.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it!!!
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Your linguistic skills are found wanting.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Strawman requires me to say something is your opinion and then argue that position. I never said what your opinion is, in my question which highlights what I see the cited law in doing.If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
You clearly do not understand what a strawman fallacy is. Not surprised.
You created a strawman regarding the cited law.
"Cited law excludes all humans before birth."
That's not what the cited law states. What you did there was a strawman of the cited law.
Try again. And with cogent sentences. Your gibberish is getting more difficult to decipher.
Created:
Posted in:
There is nothing more irritating than uneducated people throwing terms around that they do not understand.
White supremacist is a leftist fictional term derived from the fact-based term: racism
Basic (loose) definition of white supremacist: 1. one who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society. 2. An advocate of white supremacy, a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.
That is basically the definition of racism. The only difference is the designation directed at white people.
Suffice to say, the exact same definition can be directed at any race.
Chinese supremacist.
Black supremacist.
Hispanic supremacist.
Using and focusing only one "white" supremacy is a fucking farce.
It's a part of human nature for one to believe they are better than another. Especially when one follows the law, graduates high school, gets a college degree and raises a family adding to the betterment of society/community; whereas some others do exactly the opposite and do nothing but cause harm, crime and division within that very same society/community. One is, by definition, better than the other. As such, the attitude/position of feeling/believing that they are better than the other is patently justified.
We all reap what we sow in life, and for those who take the low/criminal road...any attitude directed at them by others who feel more superior to them is justified and entirely warranted.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Cited law excludes all humans before birth. Do you agree?
Nope. You're not reading the cited law correctly. What you just did was use a strawman argument. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
YOU LITERALLY.....................you know what.............................never mind I will just let you look stupid.It's alright. No need for either of us to assume the burden of his lack of decorum. His behavior has already received more attention than it deserves.
That is EXACTLY what a snowflake would say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Life is not created at conception. You can call it reproduction. Life existed before conception. That's why this term procreation is really just about confusion. Then there's needless controversy over where or when "life starts".
You clearly failed basic high-school biology class.
A new human organism is created at conception, and that conception meets the basic scientific biological criterion for "life."
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>You assert an opinion . yay
No, that's what you're doing.
The cited law can contradict biology as it does allow open interpretation as to what is a person or human prior to birth. Thats not science. Science is a tested observational thing. Not subjective.
But the cited law doesn't contradict human biology/physiology/psychology; and it most certainly does not give room for interpretation. It is crystal clear (precise) in its definitions for statutorily purposes.
Science can be subjective.
"Kuhn stated, and I agree, that there is absolutely no way to make science completely objective. This is because individual scientists hold their own opinions and beliefs about their practices. This holds true not only for scientific debate between paradigms, but also between individuals who claim to support one particular paradigm; simply because two scientists support one paradigm does not mean they support it for the same reasons or in the same manner."
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Science doesn’t always get it right, and the cited law doesn’t contradict any measure or level of science.
Also, comparing that cited law to born blacks is a false equivalency fallacy.
All your 2/3 (actually it was 3/5) slave example only serves to prove how equally infallible the laws, policies can be as science.
You (dis)proved nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Repeating yourself won’t make your idiocy any more factual. It remains factually inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You clearly know nothing of history of this country. Nothing at all, especially where the Democratic Party is concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You clearly haven’t been following along in this discussion thread. I’ve proven conclusively that a pregnancy ≠ [a] person. Go back and read them. Otherwise you should C your way out of this A/B conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don’t think the democrats or republicans are racists. They both denounce it.
Racists always do. Same as liars always scream the loudest to deflect their guilt. Case in point is Schumer denouncing Tucker Carlson and the segments he aired proving J6 investigation was a farce and complete violation of Americans rights.
The rest of your comment was rather nonsensical. A race war would fit like a glove into the Democratic/lefts divisive agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That’s not a rebuttal argument. It’s childish. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Now go read what I’ve already written to you and try again.You seem very angry. You should calm down.
Unsubstantiated ad hominem used to deflect from your own ineptness. Duly noted.
Again, go to my profile, click on forum posts and sort by thread and scroll in reverse date/time order. Even do a control F for key words to make it easier. It’s your responsibility, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You’re lazy. You can access my profile and look for my posts directed to/at you. I’m not going to repost them for you.
Slapping someone has nothing to do with personal Liberty. 🤦♂️ It’s already covered by statute, you know, the one titled “assault.”
Now go read what I’ve already written to you and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, you do not get to kill people.
A pregnancy ≠ [a] person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You didn’t ACTUALLY read a damn word I wrote.
Not a damn word.
Each response you gave was a non sequitur.
And I’ve already given, more than once, the legal (constitutional) argument how abortion, like the right to travel, marry interracially, etc. falls under “personal Liberty” rights/laws.
Ffs, go back and read my replies AGAIN. Slower. Try to let the words sink in, and perhaps you will comprehend the fact based truth of it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sorry it was so long I had to put it into two posts lol.
Superfluous nonsensical uneducated drivel. 🧐
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
YOU LITERALLY.....................you know what.............................never mind I will just let you look stupid.
Psychological projection. How cute. And banal. But what if Lee can anyone expect from a teenager.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Our discussion HAS BEEN OVER for some time. I will not state it, again.Enjoy your night, sir.
That’s EXACTLY what an intellectual coward would say.
And I don’t give a flying rat’s ass what you think, feel or believe. The discussions of abortion ARE NEVER over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Ok, well then, you're at a loss for an argument.
Nope. There is a search function provided for this very purpose.
It's not my job to rehash what I already wrote simply because you refused to acknowledge it at the time.
It's not my fault that I beat you, and you can't argue back.
Narcissistic delusions of grandeur fueled by intellectual cowardice.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i'll probably take the debate to other debate websites too,
Those websites being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Except skin, hair, or sperm cells don't have their own distinct DNA;
LOL!!!! Yeah, they do. They possess the same DNA as every other cell within the same human organism does. FFS girl, what are you smoking!?!
A zygote/embryo/fetus by definition is a human being;
Uh, no it is not.
the only difference is that they are subject to a different phase of development than an infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc.
False equivalency fallacy.
Gestational development is mutually exclusive from physiological maturation (i.e., growth).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>What many lawyers are overlooking is codified “personal Liberty” civil and federal laws.The Constitution doesn’t cover abortion under personal liberty; otherwise it would have legalized abortion up until the moment of birth. If the founders wanted to cover abortion, they would have done so in an explicit manner just like guns, free speech, cruel and unusual punishment, and the other amendments. Unless there is a constitutional right to an abortion (with an amendment) that talks explicitly about abortion,
The Constitution doesn't cover a lot of things, but they are implied. Personal Liberty rights does cover abortion, and I showed how by the very language used in its definition and the law.
Example: right to travel, it is not expressly written thereof in the US Constitution, but it is implied AND has been ruled a right of personal liberty, one's freedom of movement. Kent v Dulles (1958)
Example: Right to marry other races (interracial marriage) isn't expressly written in the US Constitution either, but via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (EPC), it was inferred/implied via personal liberty rights that people had the right to marry outside of their own race. Loving v Virginia (1967)
Need I go on with more examples?
SCOTUS screwed the pooch claiming there was a right of privacy implied within the 14th, when there was not. What they needed to do was infer upon personal liberty, the freedom to live and do as they please, especially with their own body, that doesn't violate law or impede a legally legit social or governmental purpose. Had they ruled in Roe v Wade as they did in Lawrence v Texas (2003), overturning Texas' 'anti-sodomy law,' "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," and the law violated the same EPC of the 14th.
there is no constitutional case legalizing abortion in the country, which is why Roe got overturned.
That's not why/how RvW was overturned.
Again, you’re fucking not reading anything I write in reply to you.I try to; your just very prolific.
:/
Like the kid, Lxam, you cherry pick parts of my comments you “think” you can rebut, but you fail each and every time just like Lxam.You may think that with your bias (I think you don’t refute my claims effectively), but objectively it’s neither.
I do not care what you "think," only what you can irrefutably prove. And to date you have not disproven my rebuttals effectively refuting your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>How does it not?Enlighten me.
I already have, as I said, like some 100x over. Your denialism and ignorance is a personal problem. Not my problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>No offense, mi amigo, but to deem this woman incredibly hot you must be really thirsty. Lol.She sure is sort of attractive, but that's all.
Compared to a lot of other women in political roles, she is HOT!
AOC is not hot. Neither is MTG, Bobart, et al.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"That defines abortion.
No it doesn’t you ignoramus. I’ve rebutted this like 100x on this site. Again, finish high school, go to college, take some elective constitutional law courses FFS. You’re just a blathering knucklehead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No, the states cannot protect the unborn if they want to. What many lawyers are overlooking is codified “personal Liberty” civil and federal laws. It’s also enshrined in the Constitution.
Again, you’re fucking not reading anything I write in reply to you. Like the kid, Lxam, you cherry pick parts of my comments you “think” you can rebut, but you fail each and every time just like Lxam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It doesn’t prohibit states from giving rights to other groups (the unborn if the state wanted, to do that,
You previously asked me where I read the pregnancy doesn’t have rights.
I cited two very specific laws in answer of that.
What part of those laws, especially the cit d US Code, did you fail to comprehend!?!
God!!! You’re as bad as IFound_Lxam at this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No, they’re the same damn thing. The inky variance is length of responses. Intent and purpose is the same. To have [a] discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
<<<TWS1405_2>>>The 14th was not written just for former slaves and their offspring; but rather it provides due process and equal protection of the laws upon "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."This was written this way because of African Americans, who were born in the US. Otherwise it would be impossible to immigrate to the US.
JFC!!! I hat part of “…or naturalized…” do you not comprehend!! This is the third time I’ve pointed out this glaring fact to you; it’s in black and white for Christ sake.
Created:
Since Roe v Wade was decided, everyone learned how and why SCOTUS ruled in favor of allowing women to obtain an abortion. That decision hinged on women's right to privacy. Despite the precedence standing for nearly 50 years, SCOTUS got it wrong. There is no right to "privacy" in the 14th Amendment. However, there is a clause within that amendment that directly applies to "personal liberty."
"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."
The legal definition of liberty is the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)."
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not [a] person. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean, is as follows:
- (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
- (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or "extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
- (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
- (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
What the 14th Amendment does in fact state regarding the legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law for persons is ... that they are only bestowed upon [a] person once they are either born or naturalized. Since this topic involves abortion, being born is the only legal standard clearly demarcated within the 14th Amendment that establishes those rights, privileges and equal protection of the law upon a person.
Read the rest of the post here: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/scotus-got-roe-v-wade-wrong-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-have-come-to-know
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Prove it's racist. Otherwise STFU!!!!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here is the latest follow-up by Carlson. https://youtu.be/HPg9N_HiLMg
He makes an excellent point drawing the distinction between the behaviors of those who tell the truth and those who are telling blatant lies.
Created:
Posted in:
Also it's not just the women. It's the men as well.If you put money into a soda machine, is the soda yours, or the machines.Making a child is both the man's decision and the woman's decision.
Another asinine ignorant false analogy. *facepalm*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@YouFound_LxamOk, well let me ask you this:How did the woman get pregnant?If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective. There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance.The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.And then you have rape and incest, not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do. Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.
Well sad!!!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Uh, no. That cited law is based on reality, as it provides fact based definitions for contextual clarity of the terms given to be applied throughout other statutory laws. Feelings have nothing to do with demarcating objective reality vs subjective non-legal opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
My point is that whether you are either pro-choice or anti-abortion is down to whether you empathise with the fetus or the woman forced to carry a child against her will.
The problem with your point about empathy is that others so-called empathy vanishes once they’ve forced the girl/woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Once the child is born, those people wash their hands of that empathy and don’t give a second thought towards the life-long well-being or suffering of that child. Therein lies the hypocrisy of their “empathy.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
The fetus has no rights, legal or otherwise.
Empathy has no basis in this argument. It is quashed by the woman’s personal Liberty rights, as outlined in #42. As such, the rest of your comment is rendered moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh, I understood the analogy. It’s no different than saying no two people come away with the same understanding after reading the same book. All you’re doing is stating the obvious. A point that has nothing to do with this topic under discussion, and still has nothing to do with the linguistical reality of context. If properly conveyed, there can only be one intended cogent meaning behind the context given.
Oh, and the “forum” section of DART is, by definition, a chat room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The abortion debate has absolutely fucking nothing to do with programmed computers, you twit.
But very rarely is context narrow enough to be able to resolve an issue precisely.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
Created: