Argentina legalises abortion/Argentina legaliza el aborto

[Zeno]

Because the Rothschilds gave the government money to recompense the slave-owners. Zeno is as normal being very disingenuous and sneaky with the information he chooses to share.

That is to say: Britain decided to pay off all the slave-owners when they abolished slavery. They needed money for this. They borrowed from banks, including Rothschilds. 200 years later, some Greek moron whose parents spoilt him is presenting this as some kind of untowards Jewish links to slavery, when it is, in fact, a link to anti-slavery.

They could easily recompensate the slaves with their own resources. The British government didn't actually need loans in order to repay the slaves. That's why they shouldn't even borrow these £15 million to begin with. They could pay them on their own. Britain had a vast empire and it was the dominant force in trade. Why wouldn't they find the necessary funds themselves. With getting these huge loans, the Britons were burdened with debt until 2015.

Slavery should be abolished and would be so anyhow. I mean it was hindering Britain's development rather than helping it. So, it should be abolished. But not in this way.

[-Scar-]

...........................

[Longbowman]

They could easily recompensate the slaves with their own resources. The British government didn't actually need loans in order to repay the slaves. That's why they shouldn't even borrow these £15 million to begin with. They could pay them on their own. Britain had a vast empire and it was the dominant force in trade. Why wouldn't they find the necessary funds themselves. With getting these huge loans, the Britons were burdened with debt until 2015.

Slavery should be abolished and would be so anyhow. I mean it was hindering Britain's development rather than helping it. So, it should be abolished. But not in this way.

I agree they maybe shouldn't have recompensed the slave owners. But they chose to. And no, just because Britain was wealthy doesn't mean the government had disposable funds, you collosal child. They were already in debt for other reasons (mostly war). Your understanding of history and economics is, as usual, abysmal.

[Zeno]

I agree they maybe shouldn't have recompensed the slave owners. But they chose to. And no, just because Britain was wealthy doesn't mean the government had disposable funds, you collosal child. They were already in debt for other reasons (mostly war). Your understanding of history and economics is, as usual, abysmal.

It is true that in 1815, immediately after the Napoleonic wars, the public debt of Britain was at 200%. But it had been rapidly repaid until the early 30s. But in 1833, the time of the Slavery Abolition Act, it was able to satisfy all other needs, as debt had been dramatically decreased.

[Longbowman]

It is true that in 1815, immediately after the Napoleonic wars, the public debt of Britain was at 200%. But it had been rapidly repaid until the early 30s. But in 1833, the time of the Slavery Abolition Act, it was able to satisfy all other needs, as debt had been dramatically decreased.

Debt was lower, but not gone, it was still significant. Again, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have told the slavers to go hang; the point is, they, under pressure from slavers and the wealthy elite, chose to recompense them; this was part of the anti-Slavery bill. They needed money and they borrowed from Jews. That's really not the Jews' 'fault.'

[Zeno]

Debt was lower, but not gone, it was still significant. Again, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have told the slavers to go hang; the point is, they, under pressure from slavers and the wealthy elite, chose to recompense them; this was part of the anti-Slavery bill. They needed money and they borrowed from Jews. That's really not the Jews' 'fault.'

Well, Jews control the banking system of England and the West unironically, and I'm not even saying in anti-Semitic tones. Jews do control it, although in a smaller degree than in the past. I mean, Lofnan isn't that significant anymore. But the Rothschilds... They still are.. QUITE significant.

[Aldaris]

Do you disagree with a referendum? What if the majority would vote for an abortion choice?

Yeah, I disagree with a referendum.

What majority thinks doesn't matter in general. Not so long ago, things like slavery would be condoned by majority of people in some societies. That doesn't make it right. Now, you can argue your position in a different way, but appeal to what majority thinks is bound to fail.