After Roe is gone, what's the Republican plan for dealing with the explosion of minority children?

[Michael Cole]

Something to consider

Maybe women won't have as many unwanted babies and there will be less single mother homes because women will keep their legs closed until they find a suitable mate

Considered and rejected.

Women will continue to end their pregnancies, as they have for thousands of years. Many will needlessly die.

 

[Michael Cole]

I like to remind women they have a choice just like men are reminded they can choose to keep their flys zippered

Abstinence Only Education is a Failure | Columbia Public Health

Two scientific review papers find abstinence-only education is ineffective at delaying sexual initiation or reducing sexual risk behaviors. Learn more.

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

Two scientific review papers find abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and policies in the United States are ineffective because they do not delay sexual initiation or reduce sexual risk behaviors. According to the researchers, these programs also violate adolescent human rights, withhold medically accurate information, stigmatize or exclude many youth, reinforce harmful gender stereotypes, and undermine public health programs. Both papers are published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

“The weight of scientific evidence shows these programs do not help young people delay initiation of sexual intercourse,” says co-author John Santelli, professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School. “While abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. These programs simply do not prepare young people to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.”

 

[CaughtInThe]

Encouraging some modicum of procreative responsibility would be good for starters.

you're certainly not gonna stop young people from having sex.

this next question is personal and you certainly don't have to answer if you don't want. But when you were younger how would you grade your sex drive on a scale of 1 to 10?

again, if you don't answer i'll understand. i'm just very curious to see who is pushing what.

 

[Michael Cole]

Encouraging some modicum of procreative responsibility would be good for starters.

Know how ya make a hormone?
Don't pay her.

Good luck with that. Halleluiah, praise Jesus, Lord have mercy, smite me Halle Berry.

...uh, yeah...gooooood luck with that.

That's right, Halle. Sorry. No means no.

 

[Zachary Centaur]

you're certainly not gonna stop young people from having sex.

Yeah, I've heard this axiom. But I'm thinking about frequency of sex, or values which would make young people have goals and ambitions beyond simply "having 5 kids with 5 different baby mommies or daddies by age 16, and no job or GED".

this next question is personal and you certainly don't have to answer if you don't want. But when you were younger how would you grade your sex drive on a scale of 1 to 10?

again, if you don't answer i'll understand. i'm just very curious to see who is pushing what.

Not sure, maybe a 5-7.

I've had about 15-20 partners who weren't "serious relationships" but just flings with no real strings attached - never had any children - though most of this occurred during my 20s, not my early teen years.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yeah, I've heard this axiom. But I'm thinking about frequency of sex, or values which would make young people have goals and ambitions beyond simply "having 5 kids with 5 different baby mommies or daddies by age 16, and no job or GED".

hey. good luck with that.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Not sure, maybe a 5-7.

I've had about 15-20 partners who weren't "serious relationships" but just flings with no real strings attached - never had any children - though most of this occurred during my 20s, not my early teen years.

are you a male?

 

[Outlook]

Many will be children of children (across all races).

So what's the plan?

"Explosion of minority children". Sounds like the democrat party is racist. No surprise.
85% of minorities vote democrat. You should be happy if you weren't so racist.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

to be honest, i don't remember the exact details. i think she said ultrasound.

i think i posted her tweet here but i'm not sure i can search the contents of tweets to find it.

Well, an ultrasound is the only way to find out the fetus literally does not have a brain. All an EEG could do is show there a total lack of electrical brain activity.

 

[Zachary Centaur]

Know how ya make a hormone?
Don't pay her.

Good luck with that. Halleluiah, praise Jesus, smite me Halle Berry.

...uh, yeah...gooooood luck with that.

This is just a cliche which has been more than done to death because it sells.

The fact is that there are children who grow up to be physicists and rocket scientists. And don't have 5 kids with 5 different partners by age 18 with no GED or source of income to speak of.

It's obvious that the former kids and their parents have more personal responsibility, and better life goals than "being perpetually pregnant and unemployed".

 

[Zachary Centaur]

hey. good luck with that.

Begging the question and so forth.

Kids do grow up to be doctors, surgeons, rocket scientists without having 5 kids by age 16 and no GED or income to speak of.

You're acting like every kid is raised "in da hood" with no parental guidance, role models, or life plans other than being a baby-making factory.

 

[Michael Cole]

This is just a cliche which has been more than done to death because it sells.

The fact is that there are children who grow up to be physicists and rocket scientists. And don't have 5 kids with 5 different partners by age 18 with no GED or source of income to speak of.

It's obvious that the former kids and their parents have more personal responsibility, and better life goals than "being perpetually pregnant and unemployed".

It has long been established that everybody is different. Kinda the first thing you (really) learn entering adulthood. So, if you have a point to make, I'm not seeing it. Are you suggesting we clone physicists?

Have you seen The Island?

Scarlett Johansson's character is a clone. C'mon, you gonna tell me with a straight face you'd say no to Scarlett?

Right-wing people have some strange fascination with sex, yet they don't seem to get it. Don't know any other way to put it.

People like sex. They're gonna do it. Pretending you can stop them is beyond silly. Chastity belts, anyone?

 

[Zachary Centaur]

It has long been established that everybody is different. Kinda the first thing you (really) learn entering adulthood. So, if you have a point to make, I'm not seeing it. Are you suggesting we clone physicists?

Have you seen The Island?

Scarlett Johansson's character is a clone. C'mon, you gonna tell me with a straight face you'd say no to Scarlett?

Well I wouldn't say "yes" to her simply because she's a "celebrity", I'll say that much.

Not to mention that the idea that if someone happened to sleep with a celebrity once in their lifetime, that this would be the equivalent of being a deadbeat dad or mom in the ghetto who has no ambitions in life other than to make babies which they can't support.

Right-wing people have some strange fascination with sex. They don't seem to get it. Don't know any other way to put it.

People like sex. They're gonna do it. Pretending you can stop them is beyond silly. Chastity belts, anyone?

Yeah yeah yeah, we've heard that a million times.

Back in the caveman times, there were no sciences, arts, humanities - the only thing to do was hunt and have sex.

Yet in spite of that, today we have people who want to be scientists, artists, humanitarians, rather than just sit around in da hood and make babies at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Michael Cole]

Well I wouldn't say "yes" to her simply because she's a "celebrity", I'll say that much.

Not to mention that the idea that if someone happened to sleep with a celebrity once in their lifetime, that this would be the equivalent of being a deadbeat dad or mom in the ghetto who has no ambitions in life other than to make babies which they can't support.


Yeah yeah yeah, we've heard that a million times.

Back in the caveman times, there were no sciences, arts, humanities - the only thing to do was hunt and have sex.

Yet in spite of that, today we have people who want to be scientists, artists, humanitarians, rather than just sit around in da hood and make babies at the expense of everyone else.

I see. Virgin?

People like to ****. Get over it.

 

[Zachary Centaur]

Here's a wonderful example of what I'm talking about.

These "people" have so little regard for human life that they'd murder a woman and cut her baby out of her. Yet they still want to have a kid.

That's the type of people you don't need reproducing.

[youtube]

 

[justoneman]

Wow. You didn't even read the question in the OP.

Oh. Wait. You think births aren't going up.

New babies in the US, would not go up if we close the southern border. Look you asked for a plan. I am actually giving you a plan. You do not like the plan, but it is a great plan. Why don't you consider it?

 

[Zachary Centaur]

I see. Virgin?

.
Nope, but I never had a kid even when I was sleeping around in my late teens and 20s. I wasn't that stupid.

And at this time in my life, even if I was sleeping with another 9 or 10, I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to result in a kid that I don't want to foist on society - or if the girl seemed like a hot mess.

People like to ****. Get over it.

Nope. Society doesn't care what "people like", they care what's in their best interest.

It's not in societies interest to encourage teens to drop out of high school and have 5 kids by age 16 and perpetuate the poverty cycle. Why is understanding the difference between responsible and irresponsible procreation so hard for you?

 

[Michael Cole]

.
Nope, but I never had a kid even when I was sleeping around. I wasn't that stupid.

And at this time in my life, even if I was sleeping with another 9 or 10, I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to result in a kid that I don't want to foist on society.


Nope. Society doesn't care what "people like", they care what's in their best interest.

It's not in societies interest to encourage teens to drop out of high school and have 5 kids by age 16 and perpetuate the poverty cycle. Why is understanding the difference between responsible and irresponsible procreation so hard for you?

You're rambling.

 

[Zachary Centaur]

You're rambling.

It's pretty simple.

Society isn't obligated to pander to people who do nothing but sit around and make babies.

Anymore than it is obligated to pander to people who'd "like" to sleep with Scarlett Johansson. You're acting like society is a parent who's only function is to coddle and cater to anyone and everyone's selfish whims, and that maintaining that type of relationship with society as a whole would even be a viable outlook to begin with.

 

[Michael Cole]

It's pretty simple.

Society isn't obligated to pander to people who do nothing but sit around and make babies.

Anymore than it is obligated to pander to people who'd "like" to sleep with Scarlett Johansson.

Simple isn't the half of it. You're not making any sense. Take a break. I know I am. Have a good night.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Begging the question and so forth.

Kids do grow up to be doctors, surgeons, rocket scientists without having 5 kids by age 16 and no GED or income to speak of.

You're acting like every kid is raised "in da hood" with no parental guidance, role models, or life plans other than being a baby-making factory.

i'm simply saying the Republican party has no plan for the coming increase in children who are forced to have children.

unless it's secret. do you have a copy?

 

[choiceone]

How many American women who can get pregnant are there in the United States?

There are going to be a lot fewer if Roe is overturned. Doctors usually don't perform tubal ligations till the woman is 30 "in case she changes her mind," but you can bet that many more women will get them at whatever age they can. And then there are the young women who will be planning on emigrating out of the US, exploring options for making themself desirable as immigrants for Canada, Sweden, etc., and now perhaps even Mexico.

 

[choiceone]

You have provided no logic to support the "viability" dogma. There are many, many human beings in the world who are not independently "viable", and we would not rob them of their personhood (I hope).

The absurdity of the viability argument is shown in that it postulates some instant in time at which a fetus becomes legally "viable". To kill the fetus one millisecond before that is fine. To kill the fetus one millisecond after that is homicide. This is the futility in the viability argument, and all arguments that "draw a line" past which a fetus becomes a person. There is no such line.

The "viability" argument is arbitrary and without a logical foundation. It is precisely what you claim about believing that human life begins at conception.

Life is a self-organizing process that passes through many stages of development continuously from conception to sexual maturity, controlled by DNA. When the process is controlled by human DNA, it is human life.

There is no logical basis for denying personhood to human life at any stage. (Please don't bring up fingernail clippings and the like; those are not developing, self-organizing processes; they are not life).

Personhood means, at a bare minimum, the capacity to be actually enumerated (See Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution, the census clause on actual enumeration of all persons in the US, excluding non-tax-paying Native Americans). Embryos and fetuses couldn't be actually enumerated in the late 1700s or the latter 1800s when the 14th Amendment was passed.

Even though we have better tech now, the truth is pregnancy tests with chemicals don't prove number (or even whether it's a viable pregnancy or a molar or ectopic pregnancy) and even sonograms can fail to show the extra fetuses in cases of twins and triplets. Moreover, in a case of conjoined twins, we can't know whether two heads on a single body are both functional or one is parasitic until birth, but when they are both functional, there are two persons.

So the logical basis for denying personhood to the unborn is right in the first article of the Constitution and it's still valid. If you can't be actually enumerated, of course you're not a person.

Human life never had any rights and it shouldn't have any. It is persons who have the right to life, and they have the rights to liberty and property along with it in a package deal. No one should have to continue living if the state has the right to use your body as a sex slave or incubator without your consent. You'd be better off fighting to the death in self-defense.

 

[choiceone]

Encouraging some modicum of procreative responsibility would be good for starters.

What punishment for penises do you think would encourage that?

 

[CaughtInThe]

What punishment for penises do you think would encourage that?

they're living in a dream world.

and it's all gonna come back to bite them in the ass.