| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2007 09:10:54 PM |
| Object: |
is it OK to kill life that isn't "a person"? |
On Apr 4, 12:15 am, "CafeWriter" <cafewri...@shawRemoveThis.ca> wrote
in "Re: Florida Bishop Slammed for Inaction by Brother of Terry
Schiavo":
You forgot something -Terri wasn't there even through she was breathing and
her heart was beating just fine. It takes more than just a pair of working
lungs and a beating heart to make a person.
Is it OK to kill life that isn't "a person"?
Terri didn't have all that so
in other words, her family was trying to keep an empty shell alive for no
other real reasons except to think that she's alive. Yes, she's alive but
when it comes to her mind, no she's not alive.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sub-persons/ sub-humans are expendable.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149820884.102362.221630%40u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1139372980.005787.15450%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
applauding those who kill sub-person human embryos
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1153489662.014861.278290%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
cash for sub-persons' organs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143252326.064753.206420%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Put to use killed sub-persons' brains before their cremation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143212186.992727.233750%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Is 'unter-personen' German for 'sub-persons'?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141269441.235631.242980%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
atheism-adherent Sartre: "everything is permissible if God does not
exist"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1148953550.334506.168420%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Mindreader Mitchell: Hitler was "anti-abortion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141921380.312364.144060%40i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 01:48:07 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:l7fs235p991m1hdniorditcq4bc6l63tlc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:55:54 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l29d$uni$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Not my argument ... you haven't even proven your strawman until you
produce
a fractional person ... but thats the part of the Constitution that is
irrelevant isn't it. Because if it was relevant you strawman dies.
Answered.
I'll take that as a recognition of the falseness of your argument.
Your farce/hoax is unproven until you produce a fractional person. You
have
forgotten my argument because it was true.
Answered.
I'll take that as a recognition of the falseness of your argument.
Please Mr Attila, don't be so obtuse, both my argument and yours are
measuring rights against something ... Constitution which protect rights
of
the people ... isn't this self evident to you? How could you even
question
if the slave treatment was wrong if it wasn't measured against something.
Have you seem me question if the slave treatment was wrong?
Answer my question first. "How could you even question if the slave
treatment was wrong if it wasn't measured against something."
Another of your idiot assumptions.
Just because what you imply.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 03:48:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:16:13 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:462bb58b$0$14057$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
We see you trying to change the subject again. Only people are
counted. Slaves were counted because slaves were people.
No need to change the subject Honest Ray, My arguement from the beginning
is that the slave had no Constitutional rights ... he was invisible legally
He wasn't invisible. There were many laws that applied to slaves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 04:56:39 PM |
|
|
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:6gin23d1nvoq5kuinu885h1src3jhgrk63@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:16:13 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:462bb58b$0$14057$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
We see you trying to change the subject again. Only people are
counted. Slaves were counted because slaves were people.
No need to change the subject Honest Ray, My arguement from the beginning
is that the slave had no Constitutional rights ... he was invisible
legally
He wasn't invisible. There were many laws that applied to slaves.
No doubt there were laws applicable to slaves ... runaway slave law, stop
importing slaves after I think it was 1808 and the census law ... there were
also state law relating to slaves. Again here is my argument:
Briefly my argument was that slaves were legally non persons/invisible
legally like a fetus, constitutionally ... neither had their constitutional
rights protected ... both are human biologically but ignored ... counting
slaves in a census doesn't advance his (D.Scott my example) constitutional
recognition any more than counting pregnant women would advance the fetus
recognition constitutionally. How does the above laws both state and
Federal advance the slave rights/priviledges constitutionally? ... couldn't
own property, couldnt contract, couldn't go and come as he pleased, sue in
court, serve on juries etc. I don't know all the different state slave
laws, but my guess is that most of them were to control the slaves and not
advancing their individual constitutional recognition, concerning rights and
privileges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 05:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:56:39 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
.....
Briefly my argument was that slaves were legally non persons/invisible
legally like a fetus, constitutionally ...
Briefly, your argument has been shown to be false, over and over.
Slaves were both actually and legally persons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 05:36:40 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:462bdef3.33754750@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:56:39 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
....
Briefly my argument was that slaves were legally non persons/invisible
legally like a fetus, constitutionally ...
Briefly, your argument has been shown to be false, over and over.
Slaves were both actually and legally persons.
Not constitutionally as related to my argument, the only claim I made which
was explained over and over.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 05:40:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 09:03:47 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:10pn23ld0vfefbck9adr8jkldj9ahqelpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections? I'm done.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 02:05:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:03:47 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0iec7$617$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:10pn23ld0vfefbck9adr8jkldj9ahqelpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
And yet again.
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution. That
proves your statement that he had no rights is patently false on it's
face. As it does for your statement (clearly seen above) that he was
"invisible legally.". One does not count an invisible person.
I'm done.
I've lost count. What is that, five times?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 03:59:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:ek0q2314h0pkg4m0q97ijid4urdr706ipa@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:03:47 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0iec7$617$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:10pn23ld0vfefbck9adr8jkldj9ahqelpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
And yet again.
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution. That
proves your statement that he had no rights is patently false on it's
face. As it does for your statement (clearly seen above) that he was
"invisible legally.". One does not count an invisible person.
I know you like to be precise Mr Attila, I've always said Scotts legal
constitutional rights. See that rights with and S plural. Its not my
argument, but to be precise you've only given me 1, ONE right so you are
still deficient. The above in no way was my argument, but yours ... by your
own standards you failed.
I'm done.
I've lost count. What is that, five times?
No, need to count unless you are feeling the heat ... I don't mind keep
counting.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 05:40:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:59:54 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0j6oc$md$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:ek0q2314h0pkg4m0q97ijid4urdr706ipa@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:03:47 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0iec7$617$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:10pn23ld0vfefbck9adr8jkldj9ahqelpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
And yet again.
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution. That
proves your statement that he had no rights is patently false on it's
face. As it does for your statement (clearly seen above) that he was
"invisible legally.". One does not count an invisible person.
I know you like to be precise Mr Attila, I've always said Scotts legal
constitutional rights. See that rights with and S plural. Its not my
argument, but to be precise you've only given me 1, ONE right so you are
still deficient. The above in no way was my argument, but yours ... by your
own standards you failed.
"Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally."
How can someone be "invisible legally" and at the same time have
"legal constitutional rights"?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 09:19:43 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:q9dq23hgseh2p4vphk63750ln5fm0n6p68@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:59:54 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0j6oc$md$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:ek0q2314h0pkg4m0q97ijid4urdr706ipa@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:03:47 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0iec7$617$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:10pn23ld0vfefbck9adr8jkldj9ahqelpp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0g7ih$s02$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was
he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional
rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution.
And yet again.
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution. That
proves your statement that he had no rights is patently false on it's
face. As it does for your statement (clearly seen above) that he was
"invisible legally.". One does not count an invisible person.
I know you like to be precise Mr Attila, I've always said Scotts legal
constitutional rights. See that rights with and S plural. Its not my
argument, but to be precise you've only given me 1, ONE right so you are
still deficient. The above in no way was my argument, but yours ... by
your
own standards you failed.
"Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally."
How can someone be "invisible legally" and at the same time have
"legal constitutional rights"?
Its like you quoted me ... the slave had no recognizable Constitutional
rights ... invisible legally as it prertains to the Constitution.
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 12:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:19:43 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l3m1$d4$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Its like you quoted me ... the slave had no recognizable Constitutional
rights ... invisible legally as it prertains to the Constitution.
Answered.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 02:07:09 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:jhfs235ppnk8apcbtu4hmbgfig535ufq34@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:19:43 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l3m1$d4$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Its like you quoted me ... the slave had no recognizable Constitutional
rights ... invisible legally as it prertains to the Constitution.
Answered.
Snipping doesn't count as answering ... This is your argument ... it has as
many holes a a piece of Swiss cheese ... Here it is below:
Answer the question, it pertains to my argument: A slave being counted
instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
It proved he had at least one right under the Constitution. That
proves your statement that he had no rights is patently false on it's
face. As it does for your statement (clearly seen above) that he was
"invisible legally.". One does not count an invisible person.
I know you like to be precise Mr Attila, I've always said Scotts legal
constitutional rights. See that rights with and S plural. Its not my
argument, but to be precise you've only given me 1, ONE right so you are
still deficient. The above in no way was my argument, but yours ... by
your
own standards you failed.
Failed, but this is just one way it failed, I've pointed out others.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 02:35:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 03:37:49 PM |
|
|
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 07:54:44 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ...
There is no such thing as "biologically a person".
My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally.
Which is stupid lie since I already pointed out at least one example
where slaves were recognized as being persons.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 08:52:00 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:462c03d3$0$14064$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ...
There is no such thing as "biologically a person".
Do tell ... but there is a fractional person ... the Constitution says so,
honest Ray.
My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally.
Which is stupid lie since I already pointed out at least one example
where slaves were recognized as being persons.
Yes, they had the right to be "counted" and to be "counted as fractional
persons" Show me a living breathing fractional person, honest Ray.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 12:14:30 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ...
There is no such thing as "biologically a person".
Do tell ...
Just did, halfwit.
but there is a fractional person ...
No there isn't.
the Constitution says so,
It does not, liar Joe.
My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally.
Which is stupid lie since I already pointed out at least one example
where slaves were recognized as being persons.
Yes, they had the right to be "counted" and to be "counted as fractional
persons" Show me a living breathing fractional person, honest Ray.
Strawman, liar Joe.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 03:23:57 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:462ce976$0$14123$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized
his
personhood over and over biologically ...
There is no such thing as "biologically a person".
Do tell ...
Just did, halfwit.
Do tell.
but there is a fractional person ...
No there isn't.
the Constitution says so, and Mr Attila told me the fractional person had
rights ... the right to be counted and the right to be counted as a
fractional person. How can something have rights that does not exist,
honest Ray. Your argument is with Mr Attila, not me I don't believe in
fractional people either, honest Ray.
It does not, liar Joe.
My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally.
Which is stupid lie since I already pointed out at least one example
where slaves were recognized as being persons.
Yes, they had the right to be "counted" and to be "counted as fractional
persons" Show me a living breathing fractional person, honest Ray.
Strawman, liar Joe.
No, honest Ray, ask Mr Attila, he said so ... are you saying Mr Attila is
using a strawman?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 10:44:52 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized
his
personhood over and over biologically ...
There is no such thing as "biologically a person".
Do tell ...
Just did, halfwit.
Do tell.
but there is a fractional person ...
No there isn't.
the Constitution says so,
It does not, liar Joe. If you think otherwise then quote the
section that describes a fractional person.
My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally.
Which is stupid lie since I already pointed out at least one example
where slaves were recognized as being persons.
Yes, they had the right to be "counted" and to be "counted as fractional
persons" Show me a living breathing fractional person, honest Ray.
Strawman, liar Joe.
No,
Yes, liar Joe.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 05:46:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:37:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0gh2v$6hj$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
The fact, which you admit, that he was recognized by the Constitution
as being 3/5 of a person for census purposes is de facto evidence he
was recognized by the Constitution as a legal person.
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 09:50:16 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a9pn23d3kb61e9kts8slg6hscntanj1bac@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:37:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0gh2v$6hj$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a
biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
The fact, which you admit, that he was recognized by the Constitution
as being 3/5 of a person for census purposes is de facto evidence he
was recognized by the Constitution as a legal person.
If that in any way pertained to my argument which you should know very very
well by now you would be correct, but as you know it doesn't ... Art IV sec
2, suing in court, owning property which I was referring to, stressed over
and over etc. ... Scott wasn't even recognized as a citizen ... but you
think Scotts "right" to be "counted" and counted as a "fractional person"
somehow puts his legal recognition on par with the free men is laughable at
best. Exclude the Civil War, Amend 13, 14 ... the slave had the
Constitutional right to be "counted as a fractional person" ... because of
this slaves were equal to the freemen. Yea keep believing this.
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
Wrong according to your strawmen, I have to agree. I'm done.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 02:00:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:50:16 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0ih3a$8qr$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a9pn23d3kb61e9kts8slg6hscntanj1bac@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:37:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0gh2v$6hj$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a
biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
The fact, which you admit, that he was recognized by the Constitution
as being 3/5 of a person for census purposes is de facto evidence he
was recognized by the Constitution as a legal person.
Nope, three times wasn't enough.
If that in any way pertained to my argument which you should know very very
well by now you would be correct, but as you know it doesn't ...
Yes, it does. It doesn't respond to what you think you are saying but
it directly responds to exactly what you have said over and over.
Art IV sec
2, suing in court, owning property which I was referring to, stressed over
and over etc. ... Scott wasn't even recognized as a citizen ...
Which is entirely irrelevant.
but you
think Scotts "right" to be "counted" and counted as a "fractional person"
somehow puts his legal recognition on par with the free men is laughable at
best.
But I never said that an that point has just today been raised by you.
That is not what you have been repeatedly saying over and over.
Exclude the Civil War, Amend 13, 14 ...
Which is exactly what I am doing.
the slave had the
Constitutional right to be "counted as a fractional person" ...
Absolutely. It is spelled out.
because of
this slaves were equal to the freemen.
Nope. I never said or implied that. It an issue that has not been
addressed.
Yea keep believing this.
But I don't. I never said I did.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
Wrong according to your strawmen, I have to agree. I'm done.
For the fourth time. Would anyone like to take bets?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 03:54:41 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:t60q23t3cp8fel6q5hekoos4mrivo27dki@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:50:16 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0ih3a$8qr$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:a9pn23d3kb61e9kts8slg6hscntanj1bac@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:37:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0gh2v$6hj$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was
he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible
legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional
rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized
his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a
biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
The fact, which you admit, that he was recognized by the Constitution
as being 3/5 of a person for census purposes is de facto evidence he
was recognized by the Constitution as a legal person.
Nope, three times wasn't enough.
If that in any way pertained to my argument which you should know very
very
well by now you would be correct, but as you know it doesn't ...
Yes, it does. It doesn't respond to what you think you are saying but
it directly responds to exactly what you have said over and over.
Art IV sec
2, suing in court, owning property which I was referring to, stressed over
and over etc. ... Scott wasn't even recognized as a citizen ...
Which is entirely irrelevant.
Yes, if you reject actual legal Constitutional rights which my argument
stated, I have not agrument, not because you won, but because you ignored
.... which you continually have.
but you
think Scotts "right" to be "counted" and counted as a "fractional person"
somehow puts his legal recognition on par with the free men is laughable
at
best.
But I never said that an that point has just today been raised by you.
That is not what you have been repeatedly saying over and over.
Well, then you never understood my arguement. Said it over and over ...
I've asked you ... and being recognized as a fractional person confers legal
Constitutional rights on Scott how ... which you never answered ... but
continued you fractional person bull. Lets not pretend.
Exclude the Civil War, Amend 13, 14 ...
Which is exactly what I am doing.
I said that as proof that because that is what it took to get slaves some
recognizable Constitutional rights ... get may drift.
the slave had the
Constitutional right to be "counted as a fractional person" ...
Absolutely. It is spelled out.
Unless you can show me a fractional person (lets be precise ... I know how
precise you like to be) show me a fractional person or the constitution
conferred rights (really fictional right, counted) to something that didn't
exist.
because of
this slaves were equal to the freemen.
Nope. I never said or implied that. It an issue that has not been
addressed.
You implied because the slave was counted he somehow had rights conferred to
him ... your hoax.
Yea keep believing this.
But I don't. I never said I did.
Well then stop pretending you do.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Probably not.
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
Wrong according to your strawmen, I have to agree. I'm done.
For the fourth time. Would anyone like to take bets?
Heat getting to you ... your argument dissolving before your eyes.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
23 Apr 2007 05:37:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:54:41 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0j6ej$df$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Art IV sec
2, suing in court, owning property which I was referring to, stressed over
and over etc. ... Scott wasn't even recognized as a citizen ...
Which is entirely irrelevant.
Yes, if you reject actual legal Constitutional rights which my argument
stated, I have not agrument, not because you won, but because you ignored
... which you continually have.
Scott was not recognized as a citizen because he was not a citizen.
Any failure to recognize a non-existing condition is irrelevant.
but you
think Scotts "right" to be "counted" and counted as a "fractional person"
somehow puts his legal recognition on par with the free men is laughable
at
best.
But I never said that an that point has just today been raised by you.
That is not what you have been repeatedly saying over and over.
Well, then you never understood my arguement.
I have quoted and responded word for word.
Said it over and over ...
I've asked you ... and being recognized as a fractional person confers legal
Constitutional rights on Scott how
Answered ad nauseam.
... which you never answered ...
Many times.
but
continued you fractional person bull.
It is a direct quote from the Constitution. Evidently is caused no
one else any problems.
Lets not pretend.
Amusing, coming from you.
Exclude the Civil War, Amend 13, 14 ...
Which is exactly what I am doing.
I said that as proof that because that is what it took to get slaves some
recognizable Constitutional rights ... get may drift.
the slave had the
Constitutional right to be "counted as a fractional person" ...
Absolutely. It is spelled out.
Unless you can show me a fractional person (lets be precise ... I know how
precise you like to be) show me a fractional person or the constitution
conferred rights (really fictional right, counted) to something that didn't
exist.
Answered many times.
because of
this slaves were equal to the freemen.
Nope. I never said or implied that. It an issue that has not been
addressed.
You implied because the slave was counted he somehow had rights conferred to
him ... your hoax.
No. I said it conferred the right to be counted, and that is a
directly enumerated right in the Constitution.
Yea keep believing this.
But I don't. I never said I did.
Well then stop pretending you do.
I pretend nothing.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Probably not.
Certainly not.
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
Wrong according to your strawmen, I have to agree. I'm done.
For the fourth time. Would anyone like to take bets?
Heat getting to you ... your argument dissolving before your eyes.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 09:10:22 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:4tcq2357ge53vrkubmnqk253j45f3e26p0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:54:41 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0j6ej$df$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Art IV sec
2, suing in court, owning property which I was referring to, stressed
over
and over etc. ... Scott wasn't even recognized as a citizen ...
Which is entirely irrelevant.
Yes, if you reject actual legal Constitutional rights which my argument
stated, I have not agrument, not because you won, but because you ignored
... which you continually have.
Scott was not recognized as a citizen because he was not a citizen.
Any failure to recognize a non-existing condition is irrelevant.
Then obviously, if it was irrelevant, you had no problem with slavery. The
Civil War was unnecessary, 13&14 amend unnecessary??? That is unbelievable
with the hindsight we now have.
but you
think Scotts "right" to be "counted" and counted as a "fractional
person"
somehow puts his legal recognition on par with the free men is laughable
at
best.
But I never said that an that point has just today been raised by you.
That is not what you have been repeatedly saying over and over.
Well, then you never understood my arguement.
I have quoted and responded word for word.
No you have not ... the strawman argument you set up is even a farce/hoax
.... A slave cannot be recognized (right to be counted????) unless you
confer the same what you say is a constitutional right to farm animals ...
both are property.
Said it over and over ...
I've asked you ... and being recognized as a fractional person confers
legal
Constitutional rights on Scott how
Answered ad nauseam.
Haven't until you have proof of a fractional person ... you argument, not
mine which you've never addressed. You cannot defend your farce/hoax.
... which you never answered ...
Many times.
but
continued you fractional person bull.
It is a direct quote from the Constitution. Evidently is caused no
one else any problems.
3/5 person ... produce proof of a fractional person .. to confer
Constitutional rrights to a slave, property, is to confer Const rights on
farm animals.
Lets not pretend.
Amusing, coming from you.
Exclude the Civil War, Amend 13, 14 ...
Which is exactly what I am doing.
I said that as proof that because that is what it took to get slaves some
recognizable Constitutional rights ... get may drift.
the slave had the
Constitutional right to be "counted as a fractional person" ...
Absolutely. It is spelled out.
Unless you can show me a fractional person (lets be precise ... I know how
precise you like to be) show me a fractional person or the constitution
conferred rights (really fictional right, counted) to something that
didn't
exist.
Answered many times.
because of
this slaves were equal to the freemen.
Nope. I never said or implied that. It an issue that has not been
addressed.
You implied because the slave was counted he somehow had rights conferred
to
him ... your hoax.
No. I said it conferred the right to be counted, and that is a
directly enumerated right in the Constitution.
Produce, proof of a fractional person
Yea keep believing this.
But I don't. I never said I did.
Well then stop pretending you do.
I pretend nothing.
You whole argument is pretend ... try addressing my argument.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
Probably not.
Certainly not.
That is beyond question and proves you absolutely wrong.
Wrong according to your strawmen, I have to agree. I'm done.
For the fourth time. Would anyone like to take bets?
Heat getting to you ... your argument dissolving before your eyes.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 12:28:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:10:22 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l34f$vhi$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Then obviously, if it was irrelevant, you had no problem with slavery. The
Civil War was unnecessary,
Yes.
13&14 amend unnecessary???
Not if former slaves were to be come citizens.
That is unbelievable
with the hindsight we now have.
No you have not ... the strawman argument you set up is even a farce/hoax
... A slave cannot be recognized (right to be counted????) unless you
confer the same what you say is a constitutional right to farm animals ...
both are property.
Answered.
Haven't until you have proof of a fractional person ... you argument, not
mine which you've never addressed. You cannot defend your farce/hoax.
Answered.
3/5 person ... produce proof of a fractional person .. to confer
Constitutional rrights to a slave, property, is to confer Const rights on
farm animals.
Answered.
Produce, proof of a fractional person
Answered.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 02:01:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:0cfs239863uetu5hof74ta35ignbk04eib@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:10:22 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l34f$vhi$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Then obviously, if it was irrelevant, you had no problem with slavery.
The
Civil War was unnecessary,
Yes.
I've don't remember ever hearing anyone say that they didn't have a problem
with slavery ... most people abhored slavery today ... and you have no
problem with it, even with hindsight.
13&14 amend unnecessary???
Not if former slaves were to be come citizens.
That is unbelievable
with the hindsight we now have.
No you have not ... the strawman argument you set up is even a farce/hoax
... A slave cannot be recognized (right to be counted????) unless you
confer the same what you say is a constitutional right to farm animals ...
both are property.
Answered.
Ok, if a census taker visits a farm with 4 slaves how many people does he
jot down ... 4 x 3/5 = 2 2/5ths. people ... but there is 4 slaves standing
there and the census taker jots down 2 2/5ths. Same as above but 4 freemen
.... What does the census taker jot down?
Haven't until you have proof of a fractional person ... you argument, not
mine which you've never addressed. You cannot defend your farce/hoax.
Answered.
No proof of a fractional person and you know it ... its easier to write down
"answered" than to actually answer.
3/5 person ... produce proof of a fractional person .. to confer
Constitutional rrights to a slave, property, is to confer Const rights on
farm animals.
Answered.
Produce, proof of a fractional person
Answered.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
24 Apr 2007 04:27:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:01:54 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0lk74$h5b$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:0cfs239863uetu5hof74ta35ignbk04eib@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:10:22 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0l34f$vhi$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
Then obviously, if it was irrelevant, you had no problem with slavery.
The
Civil War was unnecessary,
Yes.
I've don't remember ever hearing anyone say that they didn't have a problem
with slavery ... most people abhored slavery today ... and you have no
problem with it, even with hindsight.
The value of slavery as an economic and social factor has been and is
being debated among cultural anthropologists and economists.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OK to prefer a boy & kill unwanted female pre-born human life? |
22 Apr 2007 05:59:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:37:49 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:07en23do7g0mb9mosmeeeuk5l3ggnckhk6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:55:26 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
"Attila" <<prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:mgkm23dnifldjnqu5gbq4ht8ln0o33249r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:42:45 -0400, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <f0eb27$fpf$1@news04.infoave.net>
wrote:
He received the only one he qualified for. He wasn't killed was he?
No he wasn't killed. Doesn't change the fact he was invisible legally.
No, he was counted every ten years in the census.
A slave being counted instituted his constitutional rights/protections?
No, but it recognised his personhood. That is the issue is it not?
No is good enough and what I've continually argued ... I've recognized his
personhood over and over biologically ... probably the slave master
recognized his biological personhood. My arguement was he was a biological
human but was not recognized Constitutionally. Not being recognized
Constitutionally does not take away his biological personhood
Slaves were recongnized as persons Constitutionally. Your "argument"
is bogus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
