REALLY? Only two things you disagree with? Good Show! Because one of the things not commented-on below was about how unborn humans CAN be held responsible for their actions, exactly as mosquitoes can be held responsible for their actions....
THAT WASN'T WHY I SUPPLIED IT. The main reason was, that article mentions how the 14th Amendment has been used in favor of many sorts of rights of citizens. If the 14th was invalid, then the basis of those rights disappears. The text I wrote associated with that link, "Your mere claim is worthless without evidence", is the more-important thing. Because you made a bald claim, that the 14th was invalid, without providing any evidence whatsoever. Why should that claim be believed? Furthermore,
I get to ask you to not link to a biased site, the way you asked me to not link biased sites claiming humans cause 33,000 species to go extinct every year. Do remember it has been something like 150 years since that Amendment was declared to have been ratified, and if there really was a valid argument that its ratification was invalid, shouldn't that argument have led to a lawsuit and, eventually, the Supreme Court?
NOPE. See above. The mere claim of invalidity is worthless without evidence, when it has legally been considered valid for about a century and a half.
DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION. More about that below.
YOU DO THAT FOR A VALID REASON (can break neck jumping headfirst into too-shallow water). But see these first two definitions (from
my handy paperback dictionary):
1. Bias, favorable or unfavorable.
2. Unreasoning objection to or hatred of persons or things.
Many abortion opponents exhibit a combination of those two definitions, "unreasoning favoring of unborn humans" --the LACK of a valid reason is why that sort of prejudice is just as wrong as
claiming all Samaritans are bad people. I'm snipping the rest of what you wrote about pre-judging.
