All of these points have been addressed and you have been shown to be wrong. All you can do is repeat your mistakes and hope that will make it sound as if you're rightGosh…
Not able to point to anything you have said that is not factual…with the multiplicity of targets so readily available, one may feel the uncertainty faced by a single mosquito hovering over a nudist camp…
Where to start, where to start…..???
It’s not like I have time to go over them all, but… let’s us just go back through some of those factual inaccuracies you have undeniably stated, since you keep challenging me to do so and they keep proliferating like mutating germs.
In this thread, and again, just picking the main ones as who has time to go back through and flag EVERY SINGLE ONE of your erroneous “facts”… here is a hurried smattering.
Another thing, one who makes such statements should not go unchallenged just due to laziness, so…
You said: “Actually, most of the Africans who were enslaved died before they ever got to America”
This is factually wrong as the estimates are 12.5 -15% were lost in the Middle Passage and about 4.5% lost on the Western African Atlantic side prior to departure. You even “liked” this statement of the proof of your own off-the-cuff inaccuracy being wrong.
PS--- you even "liked" this yourself.
You said: “The constitution only protects the rights of "persons". Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born. Therefore, until it is born, a child can not be protected by the law because the constitution does not grant the govt the power to protect the unborn”
Factually untrue, proven by the fact that you cannot to this day point out anywhere the Constitution says anything of the sort. The Constitution is silent on the issue.
You said: “The bottom line is the twists, turns, and spins that the right has to go through in order to rationalize how their belief in a govt of power limited by the constitution can be squared with their desire to have the govt assume a power that was not granted to it by the constitution, and how their belief in liberty and freedom is consistent with the disdain they show for freedom when they trivialize people's right to self-determination (ie "choice") are the real "verbal gymnastics"
As already proven, the Constitution does provide notice that We, the People, who are the ACTUAL government, have rights not enumerated, expressed or implied, at our sole discretion. Should we decide to do so, so shall it be done.
You said: “The DOI is not a legal document”
While illegal, as a form of teason under an English government, this was a formal document expressing the breach of the Social Contract by King George III that was iniated under our Second Contenental Congress…how is that not a legal document*? In the most eloquent of language, overseen by many an American attorney, witnessed and signed in a very legal manner. How is the Declaration of Independence not a “legal document” that is in continuous use to this day? You never proved that statement either.
*By raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the [Second Continental ] Congress acted as the de facto national government of what became the United States [Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815, 113.].
You said: “UVVA does not protect any rights of the unborn. It protects the mother”
Does the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), protecting fetal rights, threaten abortion rights? - ACLU - ProCon.org
You will note that the text of the law makes reference to the unborn child starting with this language:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
Concluding with this language:
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
If you actually read the the law, it only mentions the mother in reference to a comparison to a crime that had been committed on the mother [ it makes no mention of this being a crime against the mother]. I again challenge you to point out the language therein where it does so in this act…
You said: “Because the UVVA specifies that people who attack a mother and cause a fetus to die should be charged with murder.
Once again, I challenge you to point out the language in the law that says anything about an attack to the mother except as a comparison to the penalty if there is an attack on an unborn child…this bill is all about the unborn child, its title is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for gosh sakes.
And in regards to our current iteration wherein you will not even deign to give definition to the terms you use…yet saying that separate DNA is not in evidence upon conception….let me do the work for us.
Conception by Merriam Webster definition: 1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) : embryo, fetus
Conception by Yourdictionary.com The formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.
As fertilization might be put under question…
by Merriam Webster definition: Fertilization (2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.
Yourdictionary.com Fertilization science definition: The process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism. The resultant zygote is diploid (it has two sets of chromosomes).
Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of Fertilization noun: 1the action or process of fertilizing an egg or a female animal or plant, involving the fusion of male and female gametes to form a zygote.
And finally should your definition of Zygote not up to date…
by Merriam Webster definition: Zygote=a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
Yourdictionary.com science definition: Zygote : The cell formed by the union of the nuclei of two reproductive cells (gametes), especially a fertilized egg cell.
If you are unable or unwilling to actually debate, just let me know. I will keep this list of inaccuracies handy to remind you…should you desire to keep uttering this undeniable equivocation regarding only stating the factual.
But I have proven, with quotes from SCOTUS' decision in Roe v Wade, that under the constitution a ZEF is not a person, and has no rights. Your inability to understand how our justice system determines the meaning of the constitution is not my failing; it is yours.
All of the points you raised have been addressed, and so all you're doing is repeating your mistakes, as if repeating them will make them true
The fact is that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights. I have po