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

[CaughtInThe]

Stop them from voting, stomp their education and opportunity for advancement, send their kids off to endless useless wars, economically and socially turn them back to damn near slave status, and overall treat them as second class citizens.

Exactly what you would expect from White Nationalism.

Sounds about right.

 

[Credence]

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

So what's the plan?

The only plan, either intentional or unintentional, is to keep minorities suppressed. MOO

 

[CaughtInThe]

What I'm doing is showing that nazis complaining about the excess of jews is hilarious.

Don't worry. When there are suddenly a ton more 14-17yo white mothers and fathers a bunch of opinions will change.

 

[Atreus21]

So, the needless, mismanaged Iraq war didn't deliberately kill any innocent human beings? What, exactly, were our troops who were sent to get killed guilty of? Every policy I listed intentionally kills innocent people.

No it doesn't. The aim of war isn't to deliberately kill innocent human beings. Civilians killed as collateral damage is not the same thing as pointing out an innocent person and saying, "kill it."

To the extent a soldier does that, he is guilty of murder and is a war criminal.

 

[Atreus21]

It robs them of their reproductive rights. it robs them of their right to manage their own bodies. What are you talking about?

It robs them of the ability to kill their own children, of which men are similarly robbed.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Spoiler alert: see their opposition to baby formula for babies in our custody, AND for poorer Americans. Make America Starve Again?

They only want to force their religious beliefs on pregnant woman in America, they don't give a **** about babies or children once they are born and part of our society. They are hypocritical scum, deplorables.

 

[Atreus21]

Don't worry. When there are suddenly a ton more 14-17yo white mothers and fathers a bunch of opinions will change.

Why?

 

[jnug]

Overturning Roe doesn't mean forcing women to get hysterectomies. What on earth are you talking about?



Men can give birth now, apparently.

Les see how many of them would actually......good luck with that.

It robs them of the ability to kill their own children, of which men are similarly robbed.

They are not children yet. They are not viable yet. They are not viable before 22-24 weeks of gestational age.

Just for the record, the Texas 6 week limitation on legal Abortion is more Rightie HORSE CRAP. Whatever you clowns think you are hearing at 6 weeks, its not a heartbeat. The physical plumbing required to make a heartbeat is not even there yet at 6 weeks.

Granting personhood at conception is a complete joke...a laugher if there ever was one. The pure fantasy of a belief structure with NOTHING to support it.

 

[Atreus21]

Les see how many of them would actually......good luck with that.

They are not children yet. They are not viable yet. They are not viable before 22-24 weeks of gestational age.

So you oppose abortion after 22-24 weeks?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why?

Because those white parents of 14-17yo "parents" will want them to (suddenly) have a choice.

But, maybe you're right. Breastfeeding your kid in middle or high school could become a thing.

 

[Craig234]

No it doesn't. The aim of war isn't to deliberately kill innocent human beings. Civilians killed as collateral damage is not the same thing as pointing out an innocent person and saying, "kill it."

So, if you put poison in products at the supermarket, knowing it will kill innocent people, it's ok because you didn't point at a particular person and say kill them. Sorry, you have failed to split the hair you're trying to split. Your defending things like taking healthcare from tens of millions of people, which would kill innocent people, shows serious flaws in your morals and understanding.

To the extent a soldier does that, he is guilty of murder and is a war criminal.

Choosing an unneeded war resulted in many innocent people being killed, from "shock and awe" bombing, to displacement of millions of people, to poor quality occupation policies and many more things. You support that, apparently; Republicans did. I don't need to repeat the partial list I gave. You are being very disingenuous.

 

[Atreus21]

Because those white parents of 14-17yo "parents" will want them to (suddenly) have a choice.

Well, that's what overturning Roe will permit us to discover.

 

[jnug]

So you oppose abortion after 22-24 weeks?

I have a difficult time saying that when a women or girl and a doctor determine that her life is at risk if she carries to term that she must carry to term.After all we have now tumbled to 55th on the world scale for women dying from carrying their babies to term and dead last of industrialized nations....DEAD LAST. Perhaps we should work on that a bit harder. But of course we won't.

Save that, I would be fine with a legal limit at viability which is about were it is now.

Really 15 weeks would not be terrible as 9 out of 10 Abortions are now done at 13 weeks, long before the end of the second trimester. The problem with 15 weeks is that there is no legitimate framework for it. Most abotions occurring at 13 weeks is not a legitimate framework. Viability is a legitimate framework. Also, the pro-birth crowd would have to stop preventing reasonable access to legal Abortion if the legal limit was 15 weeks.

CJ Roberts kept trying to get anybody representing Mississippi to provide a legitimate framework for 15 weeks because he was keen to hang a SC Opinion on such a thing. Nobody representing Mississippi could do it much to Robert's frustration.

 

[Atreus21]

So, if you put poison in products at the supermarket, knowing it will kill innocent people, it's ok because you didn't point at a particular person and say kill them.

Of course not.

Sorry, you have failed to split the hair you're trying to split. Your defending things like taking healthcare from tens of millions of people, which would kill innocent people, shows serious flaws in your morals and understanding.

Uh wrong. Expecting people to see to their own Healthcare needs is not analogous at all to poisoning groceries, for heaven's sake.

Choosing an unneeded war resulted in many innocent people being killed, from "shock and awe" bombing, to displacement of millions of people, to poor quality occupation policies and many more things. You support that, apparently; Republicans did. I don't need to repeat the partial list I gave. You are being very disingenuous.

Was the objective of the Iraq war to deliberately kill innocent human beings?

 

[choiceone]

a fetus exists from conception. It can't live outside the womb yet. Hence it is not a person and does not deserve the rights of personhood. Amazing to me that the anti-choice crowd deems conception worthy of the rights of personage while at the same time robbing it from living breathing women.

So call pro-life advocates are not pro-life. If they are pro anything, they are pro-birth.

Even though we are both pro-choice, I have to correct you. A fetus does not exist from conception. After the fertilization of the ovum, a zygote exists. It then begins cell multiplication, so we can call it an embryo. Only after basic organogenesis does a fetus exist.

You're completely right, tho, that an embryo/fetus is not a person. It does not meet the basic requirement for the definition, which is logically implied by the Census clause in the Constitution, which says that, every 10 years, all persons in the US have to be actually enumerated (i.e., one cannot do a projected count).

It was impossible to enumerate embryos/fetuses actually in the late 18th century and in the latter 19th century when the 14 Amendment was made. Even now, and even with sonograms, one can't do an adequate actual enumeration. So it is not reasonable to argue that the 14th A passage on personal rights to life, liberty, and property could have applied to the unborn.

 

[Craig234]

Of course not.

That's the standard you set. So, confronted with what you said, your response is 'nuh uh'.

Uh wrong. Expecting people to see to their own Healthcare needs is not analogous at all to poisoning groceries, for heaven's sake.

I didn't say it was analogous. I said that taking healthcare from tens of millions of people will kill many of them, and is not protecting life. The fact you try to propagandize in favor of it by refusing to admit the harm, and to sell it with a dishonest slogan like those people are to blame, is despicable and a lie.

Was the objective of the Iraq war to deliberately kill innocent human beings?

So, killing innocent people is fine with you, if it's part of something else - like wanting to be a "war president" because that increases the president's political power for their unpopular domestic agenda to screw the American people.

You probably think that sounds 'partisan'. IT'S WHAT BUSH ADMITTED. When he was running, he said he wanted to be a "war president" because it would give him more "political capital" he could use for his agenda - which his top priority in term 1 was the tax cuts for the rich he got, and his top priority second term was beginning privatization of Social Security, which he did not get, but he tried.

You're being disingenuous, as I said. You are for every policy option I listed that kills innocent people except one, so you don't get to claim what you tried.

 

[Atreus21]

I have a difficult time saying that when a women or girl and a doctor determine that her life is at risk if she carries to term that she must carry to term.After all we have now tumbled to 55th on the world scale for women dying from carrying their babies to term and dead last of industrialized nations....DEAD LAST. Perhaps we should work on that a bit harder. But of course we won't.

Save that, I would be fine with a legal limit at viability which is about were it is now.

I never understood the viability standard. It's utterly subjective (some kids die at 22 weeks where others survive) and, more importantly, since when do we condition someone's life on their ability to survive in particularly difficult conditions?

Really 15 weeks would not be terrible as 9 out of 10 Abortions are now done at 13 weeks, long before the end of the second trimester. The problem with 15 weeks is that there is no legitimate framework for it. Most abotions occurring at 13 weeks is not a legitimate framework. Viability is a legitimate framework.

I don't understand why.

Also, the pro-birth crowd would have to stop preventing reasonable access to legal Abortion if the legal limit was 15 weeks.

CJ Roberts kept trying to get anybody representing Mississippi to provide a legitimate framework for 15 weeks because he was keen to hang a SC Opinion on such a thing. Nobody representing Mississippi could do it much to Robert's frustration.

Haggling over development is hopeless in the end. Any standard we come to is arbitrary. Why can we kill a child at 14 weeks but not 15?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Well, that's what overturning Roe will permit us to discover.

You're going to learn a lot of stuff from young women. The lesson is just starting.

 

[Atreus21]

That's the standard you set. So, confronted with what you said, your response is 'nuh uh'.

I set a standard saying it's okay to poison people?

I didn't say it was analogous. I said that taking healthcare from tens of millions of people will kill many of them, and is not protecting life.

Then what on earth was the comparison between poisoning groceries and rescinding government funded Healthcare?

Government not providing everyone a house might cost lives too. The same goes for food.

The government isnt deliberately killing people by expecting them to house themselves, feed themselves, and see to their own health.

So, killing innocent people is fine with you, if it's part of something else - like wanting to be a "war president" because that increases the president's political power for their unpopular domestic agenda to screw the American people.

You probably think that sounds 'partisan'. IT'S WHAT BUSH ADMITTED. When he was running, he said he wanted to be a "war president" because it would give him more "political capital" he could use for his agenda - which his top priority in term 1 was the tax cuts for the rich he got, and his top priority second term was beginning privatization of Social Security, which he did not get, but he tried.

You're being disingenuous, as I said. You are for every policy option I listed that kills innocent people except one, so you don't get to claim what you tried.

Again, was the objective of the Iraq war to deliberately kill innocents?

 

[Craig234]

I never understood the viability standard. It's utterly subjective (some kids die at 22 weeks where others survive) and, more importantly, since when do we condition someone's life on their ability to survive in particularly difficult conditions?

This isn't quite the same topic, but can you explain to me why every person one day older than every person one day younger is qualified for rights to vote, to enter legal contracts, while the group one day younger is not? Can you explain to me why 55MPH per hour is safe for hundreds of miles, while 56MPH never is over those miles? Can you explain why X signatures is enough for a ballot initiative, but X-1 is not?

 

[Atreus21]

This isn't quite the same topic, but can you explain to me why every person one day older than every person one day younger is qualified for rights to vote, to enter legal contracts, while the group one day younger is not? Can you explain to me why 55MPH per hour is safe for hundreds of miles, while 56MPH never is over those miles? Can you explain why X signatures is enough for a ballot initiative, but X-1 is not?

We have arbitrary standards in some areas, but not where it decides our right to kill you.

 

[CaughtInThe]

We have arbitrary standards in some areas, but not where it decides our right to kill you.

Does the government have the right to kill people via execution?

 

[Craig234]

I set a standard saying it's okay to poison people?

Yes. You set a standard that as long as you're not pointing at a person and saying 'kill them', it's fine. So killing innocent people in the many situations I listed is fine to you; and poisoning products meets your standard also, as long as you don't hand the poisoned product to a particular person to intentionally kill them. But pollute the environment in a way that kills thousands? You and Republicans say great.

Then what on earth was the comparison between poisoning groceries and rescinding government funded Healthcare?

I didn't compare them. I made one point and then a second point. If I say trump's tax cuts for the rich were terrible, and his attempted coup was terrible, it doesn't mean I compared tax cuts and a coup.

Government not providing everyone a house might cost lives too. The same goes for food.

And whaddya know, the government has assistance in housing and food. I've said repeatedly you're being disingenuous. There are practical, rational, sensible issues around things like the need for everyone to get healthcare, which can have various solutions, but you don't give a crap about the people killed by your Republican policies, obviously, you just parrot a lie that everyone can pay for it.

The government isnt deliberately killing people by expecting them to house themselves, feed themselves, and see to their own health.

The people who support policies that result in killing innocent people on those topics, are deliberately killing innocent people. But you are disingenuous. I'm going to stop wasting my time if you are just going to repeat the disingenuous comments.

 

[Craig234]

We have arbitrary standards in some areas, but not where it decides our right to kill you.

That's rhetoric, sloganeering, not a rational comment. Doesn't the speed limit involve killing innocent people?

 

[trouble13]

or a bunch will end up in foster care.

Either way is better than ending up in a rhetorical coffin