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

[choiceone]

Abstinence-Only Education Is a Failure

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...

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.”

I love this quote. Nobody is saying the philosophical reason for the failure: hypocrisy.

If people are telling you abstain, but only till marriage, they are telling you that they don't really want you to abstain, but rather to postpone. They only give you evidence to persuade you to do that.

Suppose you gave adolescent girls the accurate information that could reasonably induce them to abstain, by showing you what STDs can do to your body, and what pregnancy and childbirth can do to your body. Photographs of torn flesh, lists of injuries resulting in incontinence and morbid obesity, etc., stats showing how many women die from pregnancy-related causes, how many are permanently injured, how many have long term illnesses.

They would never want to have sex at all and when parents expected them to marry, they'd just laugh.

 

[Michael Cole]

I love this quote. Nobody is saying the philosophical reason for the failure: hypocrisy.

If people are telling you abstain, but only till marriage, they are telling you that they don't really want you to abstain, but rather to postpone. They only give you evidence to persuade you to do that.

Suppose you gave adolescent girls the accurate information that could reasonably induce them to abstain, by showing you what STDs can do to your body, and what pregnancy and childbirth can do to your body. Photographs of torn flesh, lists of injuries resulting in incontinence and morbid obesity, etc., stats showing how many women die from pregnancy-related causes, how many are permanently injured, how many have long term illnesses.

They would never want to have sex at all and when parents expected them to marry, they'd just laugh.

One day in "health" class...'72 I believe...we watched a (film of a) baby being born. After health was lunch. They were serving spaghetti. Didn't stop any of us.

 

[reflechissez]

Human nature says I am right, your political idealism not withstanding.

you betcha

 

[trouble13]

Considered and rejected.

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

That's on them

 

[trouble13]

Abstinence-Only Education Is a Failure

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...

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.”

Big deal you produced some bias papers. I notice it didn't include the stats for the decline of the nuclear family in relation to the abortion rates. That would not fit neatly with the authors desired narrative

 

[lurchadams]

My point is that there is a moral case for sometimes deliberately killing the guilty. There is none for deliberately killing the innocent.

Only if you agree with the premise that innocent people are being killed. Your premise is incorrect therefore your entire argument fails.

 

[Torus34]

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

So what's the plan?

Hi, CaughtinThe.

It's right there on the shelf, next to the plan which replaces the Affordable Care Act.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[Atreus21]

Only if you agree with the premise that innocent people are being killed. Your premise is incorrect therefore your entire argument fails.

They are (1) innocent and (2) human beings. What else do you need?

 

[Eatomus]

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

So what's the plan?

But aren't children across all races , " Just as smart as some white kids" ( President Biden )

You need to listen & trust the President' on this issue .

Biden tells minority voters in Iowa that ‘poor kids’ are just as bright as ‘white kids’​

By Matt Viser
and
John Wagner

August 9, 2019 at 1:25 p.m. EDT

 

[CaughtInThe]

But aren't children across all races , " Just as smart as some white kids" ( President Biden )

You need to listen & trust the President' on this issue .

Biden tells minority voters in Iowa that ‘poor kids’ are just as bright as ‘white kids’​

By Matt Viser
and
John Wagner

August 9, 2019 at 1:25 p.m. EDT

View attachment 67392328

I'm surprised that you don't have a plan either.

 

[vanceen]

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.

"Enumeration" is completely illogical as a test of personhood. It relies on an interpretation of the Constitution that was obviously not in the mind of the writers. To take it seriously would require at least an attempt to explain how enumerability is logically related to personhood.

 

[Eatomus]

I trust Biden evaluating humans of all races.
He's so smart .

" Finally, we have an African American who is clean and articulate, bright and good looking...this is storybook man" ( President Biden )

 

[choiceone]

One day in "health" class...'72 I believe...we watched a (film of a) baby being born. After health was lunch. They were serving spaghetti. Didn't stop any of us.

You're a guy. I was talking about being persuasive with women.

 

[Blue Dog]

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

So what's the plan?

There isn’t any. Once born they have to embrace “rugged individualism”…

 

[Michael Cole]

You're a guy. I was talking about being persuasive with women.

It was a joke.

 

[choiceone]

"Enumeration" is completely illogical as a test of personhood. It relies on an interpretation of the Constitution that was obviously not in the mind of the writers. To take it seriously would require at least an attempt to explain how enumerability is logically related to personhood.

First, if we can't count them, we can't separately identify them, and if we can't do that, we cannot know which entities have rights to life, liberty, and property. So of course we have to be able to identify them separately.
Each person has his/her own rights to life, liberty, and property. Hence, this is completely logical. The reason you don't think so is that you're not a social scientist. This criterion does not technically have to do with being a "person," but it has everything to do with being "a" person.

If we did not identify embryos separately, we could argue that, although the pregnant woman obviously has her own rights to life, liberty, and property, as we can't enumerate embryos and fetuses inside her, they aren't separate from her and so have no rights of their own. It would seem, then, that abortion would be perfectly okay from conception on.

Second, when the Census clause was written, the writers specified that all persons in the US had to be counted in an "actual Enumeration." They were obviously contrasting this with the count that was done for states at the time of the Articles of Confederation, which was a projected count in which population was estimated. The use of "actual Enumeration" itself indicates that the writers didn't want a projected count. Furthermore, in the official questions for 1790 census, there is no indication of how to count the unborn, but because they can only be counted by projection and not by actual enumeration, we would expect such an indication if they were included.

 

[vanceen]

First, if we can't count them, we can't separately identify them, and if we can't do that, we cannot know which entities have rights to life, liberty, and property. So of course we have to be able to identify them separately.
Each person has his/her own rights to life, liberty, and property. Hence, this is completely logical. The reason you don't think so is that you're not a social scientist. This criterion does not technically have to do with being a "person," but it has everything to do with being "a" person.

If we did not identify embryos separately, we could argue that, although the pregnant woman obviously has her own rights to life, liberty, and property, as we can't enumerate embryos and fetuses inside her, they aren't separate from her and so have no rights of their own. It would seem, then, that abortion would be perfectly okay from conception on.

Second, when the Census clause was written, the writers specified that all persons in the US had to be counted in an "actual Enumeration." They were obviously contrasting this with the count that was done for states at the time of the Articles of Confederation, which was a projected count in which population was estimated. The use of "actual Enumeration" itself indicates that the writers didn't want a projected count. Furthermore, in the official questions for 1790 census, there is no indication of how to count the unborn, but because they can only be counted by projection and not by actual enumeration, we would expect such an indication if they were included.

You still haven't shown any logical connection between "enumerability" and "personhood".

Even if there were such a connection, your basic premise that embryos and fetuses can't be enumerated is simply incorrect.

The language of the Constitution related to the census is obviously intended for calculating the representation of the various states, not to defining legal personhood.

You're right about one thing. I'm not a "social scientist". I'm a physical scientist.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

I live right on the border. These people you hate so much are basically my neighbors.

I like them, for the most part. They get along well in this city.

You would argue that Americans have a moral obligation to take these people in regardless of how they act. All it would take is a detour in the convo to Rotherham England to get you explaining that there is literally no bad behavior, crime, or literally anything that could ever get you to approve of even slowing immigration down.

Oh, but it is. But the hate is there for the far-right, racist lunatics that spend all day telling me there's MILLIONS OF INVISIBLE PEOPLE passing by my house every day.

Because they're stupid enough to believe jackasses like Carlson.

Im sorry, were the people being deported by ICE you got your knickers and pretzel over "invisible people" too? I was told at one point in time that the border did in fact have millions of innocent refugees looking for a better life being mercilessly, brutally deported by Fuhrer Trump. These millions of refugees were being treated so brutally in fact that you thought ICE should be fire bombed

ICE offices?

I'll start making the popcorn.

What I really want to understand is the theory of mind people that lie like this have. Like who is this hypothetical person who, after years of Howl whining about all the immigrants who are being kept out and sent back is going to be swayed by "I can see Mexico from my house!"

 

[CaughtInThe]

So. No plan?