• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

That's not a plan ro deal with the explosion of children (primarily to lower income women).

But don't worry, if the Ivankas of the country get pregnant they'll find a way to have an abortion.
Sure it's a plan. Stop the low income babies at the border, then if there are more US citizen low income babies born in the US then it is even. Simple.
 
Sure it's a plan. Stop the low income babies at the border, then if there are more US citizen low income babies born in the US then it is even. Simple.
How many American women who can get pregnant are there in the United States?
 
Oh we should move to a completely socialist/communist system where the gov't houses, feeds, medical covers and raises all children and families will not be needed.

OR, people make choices and they have to live them. Poor choices don't mean the rest of us should have to freaking PAY for them just because you get case of the moral outrage sads.
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions...."
Yeah. That's the ticket.
 
How many American women who can get pregnant are there in the United States?
Who can get pregnant, would get pregnant, and would get an abortion? I don't know. Nobody knows. I would say less than the number streaming by the millions over the border.
 
nah i meant what i said.
interestingly, you spoke of whores and keeping their legs closed.

the rest of us, when speaking of horny men, say they need to keep it in their pants.



i'm sure you meant men and women when you spoke of whores. 🤣🤣
 
interestingly, you spoke of whores and keeping their legs closed.

the rest of us, when speaking of horny men, say they need to keep it in their pants.



i'm sure you meant men and women when you spoke of whores. 🤣🤣
I don't assume anyone's gender.
 
Many will be children of children (across all races).

So what's the plan?
Republican plan? Reduce support for/cut social programs created to help low income families, and publicly disparage women that don’t make much money for getting pregnant.
 
Not a human being. Not viable, not a human being.

Define "viable". Preferably, define "viable" in such a way that there would be no human beings defined as "not viable".
 
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.

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.

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).
 
You speak for some big group or something? You like the babies coming over the border but not the ones from citizens born in the US?

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.
 
Define "viable". Preferably, define "viable" in such a way that there would be no human beings defined as "not viable".
Actually that dark path of "viable" has historical precedents and led to many an atrocities.
 
Actually that dark path of "viable" has historical precedents and led to many an atrocities.

True, the "not really human" line of thinking has justified a lot of bad actions.
 
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.
Maybe your heart isn't filled with hate.
 
Maybe your heart isn't filled with hate.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom