• 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!

Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

The illegitimacy rate before Roe was only 5%. The illegitimacy rate today is close to 40%. And yes, the welfare rolls have bloomed. We were much better off in the days of Shotgun Weddings. People made mistakes, but they owned up to them.
Oh climb down off of your throne of pontification, your nose is starting to bleed.

The illegitimacy actually went down after 1973. Yes it it up now because women have decided that they really don't have to put up with men who sit on thrones issuing decrees about how to keep house, how to raise children and how to manage their reproductive lives, and how women were better back when women were forced into marriage because some male didn't like condoms.
 
How do cops know? Women that dont want to be pregnant, or dont care, keep drinking and smoking and doing drugs and dont go to doctors. And by the time they're really showing, it's too late. Cops cant just stop fat women and ask them :rolleyes:

Your "simple" answer really is just that...empty and without thought for reality. Another fail for you, just avoiding the argument.

Hospital reports little Timmy is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Cops launch an investigation, woman is arrrested. Other women hear about that and say, "I'd better not do that." Problem solved.

I asked you were the rest came from then? ~100,000 kids waiting to be adopted. There are ~400,000 in the foster care system and ~100,00 are available for adoption. Where did they come from if people will adopt all the babies...all those people on waiting lists? Tough shit for them then, cant pick exactly what they want off the shelf.

100,000 kids who aren't babies, who often have other issues, and a court system that just can't wait to give them back to the bad parents they took them from to start with.




You're such a good Christian. /sarcasm. Demanding women give birth to these kids just to dump them for adoption and then rejecting them as damaged goods. Your post is one of the most hypocritical, disgusting, and unchristian that I've ever read.

Well, we could talk about how liberal "Do-gooders" make it impossible for white parents to adopt black kids who are in the system, but let's not go there.

As a practical matter, adopting a kid with behavioral issues from being born into a battered home beause DCS didn't do its job and take that kid out of there six years ago is asking quite a lot of parents.
 
And youve just dictated what's responsible. So, women, be responsible...........my way!!!!

You mean, what civilization has considered responsible for centuries?

Oh climb down off of your throne of pontification, your nose is starting to bleed.

The illegitimacy actually went down after 1973. Yes it it up now because women have decided that they really don't have to put up with men who sit on thrones issuing decrees about how to keep house, how to raise children and how to manage their reproductive lives, and how women were better back when women were forced into marriage because some male didn't like condoms.

Nope.

1748603816501.webp

Now, I can't put all the blame on feminism and abortion. Idiotic government policies of subsidizing bad behavior helped, too.
 
You mean, what civilization has considered responsible for centuries?
Slavery and suffrage were considered responsible for centuries. Shall we continue to socially regress to fit your particular ideologies?
 
Defining whilst demanding such responsibilities, all for an effort in denying her her liberties, is the epitome of oppression.

Actually, all freedom is primarily based on how we interact with each other.

My freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose.

So with that very sensible definition as a starting point, how does that apply to abortion?

If a fetus becomes a person at some point during its gestation, a woman's freedom to have something shoved up there to kill it is overruled by its right to life. This is why Roe was flawed. It didn't define fetal personhood. It just mealy-mouthed some stuff about "viability" that immediately went out the window with the concurrent ruling of Doe v. Bolton, which allowed the murder of viable fetuses for "health" reasons.

Slavery and suffrage were considered responsible for centuries. Shall we continue to socially regress to fit your particular ideologies?

Not sure what you mean by "suffrage". Suffrage allowed women to have the vote. Slavery was always contradictory to the principle that "all men are created equal".

so we get back to the point. If you are a nutty Feminazi who thinks fetuses are meat byproduct, I'm not going to piss up that rope. It's a waste of time. But if you are going to say it's okay to kill a human being because it's too small to defend itself, a lot of people are going to have a problem with that.
 
Actually, all freedom is primarily based on how we interact with each other.

My freedom to swing my arm ends at your nose.

So with that very sensible definition as a starting point, how does that apply to abortion?

If a fetus becomes a person at some point during its gestation, a woman's freedom to have something shoved up there to kill it is overruled by its right to life. This is why Roe was flawed. It didn't define fetal personhood. It just mealy-mouthed some stuff about "viability" that immediately went out the window with the concurrent ruling of Doe v. Bolton, which allowed the murder of viable fetuses for "health" reasons.



Not sure what you mean by "suffrage". Suffrage allowed women to have the vote. Slavery was always contradictory to the principle that "all men are created equal".

so we get back to the point. If you are a nutty Feminazi who thinks fetuses are meat byproduct, I'm not going to piss up that rope. It's a waste of time. But if you are going to say it's okay to kill a human being because it's too small to defend itself, a lot of people are going to have a problem with that.
This is all premised upon that debatable, aforementioned "if" the unborn "become persons" under constitutional law. Your knee-jerk pronouncement of such does not determine the facts.

Nonetheless, personhood status does not favor your position per the scenario brought to you (and subsequently unanswered) via post #1941 page 78.
 
Hospital reports little Timmy is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Cops launch an investigation, woman is arrrested. Other women hear about that and say, "I'd better not do that." Problem solved.

Wdat does that do for the kid? Nothing. And no...that doesnt work with alcoholics, period. Doesnt keep them from drunk driving with their kids in the car. It's funny you think that any such consequences keep addicts from smoking, drinking, doing drugs. :rolleyes:

Another fail for you.

100,000 kids who aren't babies, who often have other issues, and a court system that just can't wait to give them back to the bad parents they took them from to start with.

Nope...dont make crap up...where did the kids' issues come from if they were dumped at birth the way you're claiming women can "just do instead of aborting".

And no, it's not the 'bad parents' that lose their kids temporarily. There are ~400,000 kids in foster care...only ~100,000 are up for adoption. The other ~300,000 are the ones where the parents are still able to get them back...

So we're back to...where did the 100,000 come from? And obviously even with legal abortion, that number is huge. So...you want to use a failed program...adoption...as an excuse to ban/restrict abortion and produce MORE kids sitting waiting to be adopted.. What a stupid post, continually promoting a failed solution.

Well, we could talk about how liberal "Do-gooders" make it impossible for white parents to adopt black kids who are in the system, but let's not go there.

Please source the bold. It's bullshit, since I know otherwise, but source it or...another fail for you.

Btw, do you approve of white people adopting black kids?

As a practical matter, adopting a kid with behavioral issues from being born into a battered home beause DCS didn't do its job and take that kid out of there six years ago is asking quite a lot of parents.

So no matter what excuse ⬆️ you come up with here, it only illustrates how poorly the system works...and how stupid it is to deny pregnant women abortions and demand they add more children to a broken system where they dont get the attention, care, and socialization they need. Again...about as cruel and unchristian as you can get. You make the case against your own argument.

Chalk up another entire post of fail for you (y)
 
You mean, what civilization has considered responsible for centuries?
Nope.
View attachment 67572228
illegitimacy went down. after Roe. Why would it have gone up if abortion was available and legal?

. 1974 Sep 13 Abortion, illegitimacy, and the American birth rate
J Sklar, B Berkov

Abstract
In sum, it appears that legal abortion depressed overall fertility, but particularly illegitimate fertility, by giving women an opportunity to terminate their pregnancies when other means of birth control either had not been used or had failed. If legalized abortion had not been available, an estimated additional 39,000 illegitimate babies and 28,000 legitimate babies would have been born in 1971 in the United States. While this makes up a small part of total births (3,500,000), the illegitimate births prevented represent almost onetenth of all out-of-wedlock children born in the country in that year. In addition to preventing these births the legalization of abortion appears to have reduced the incidence of pregnancy-related marriages and thereby may have helped to limit subsequent marital disruption. Finally, legal abortion prevented large numbers of illegal abortions from occurring. Our data indicate that well over half-most likely between two-thirds and three-fourths-of all legal abortions in the United States in 1971 were replacements for illegal abortions. Further declines in illegitimate birth rates for the country as a whole will depend, in considerable part, on the extent to which legal abortion becomes more readily available and more widely used. .......Our interstate analysis suggests that should the liberalization of abortion laws be reversed, not only would there be an upturn in illegal abortions and pregnancy-related marriages, but also a marked rise in illegitimacy, particularly among women who do not have the means to obtain an illegal abortion.
 
illegitimacy went down. after Roe. Why would it have gone up if abortion was available and legal?

. 1974 Sep 13 Abortion, illegitimacy, and the American birth rate
J Sklar, B Berkov

Abstract
In sum, it appears that legal abortion depressed overall fertility, but particularly illegitimate fertility, by giving women an opportunity to terminate their pregnancies when other means of birth control either had not been used or had failed. If legalized abortion had not been available, an estimated additional 39,000 illegitimate babies and 28,000 legitimate babies would have been born in 1971 in the United States. While this makes up a small part of total births (3,500,000), the illegitimate births prevented represent almost onetenth of all out-of-wedlock children born in the country in that year. In addition to preventing these births the legalization of abortion appears to have reduced the incidence of pregnancy-related marriages and thereby may have helped to limit subsequent marital disruption. Finally, legal abortion prevented large numbers of illegal abortions from occurring. Our data indicate that well over half-most likely between two-thirds and three-fourths-of all legal abortions in the United States in 1971 were replacements for illegal abortions. Further declines in illegitimate birth rates for the country as a whole will depend, in considerable part, on the extent to which legal abortion becomes more readily available and more widely used. .......Our interstate analysis suggests that should the liberalization of abortion laws be reversed, not only would there be an upturn in illegal abortions and pregnancy-related marriages, but also a marked rise in illegitimacy, particularly among women who do not have the means to obtain an illegal abortion.

He's not telling the truth, it makes no more sense than him continually complaining that these "irresponsible" women/couples should be forced to be parents because "irresponsible people make such good parents." :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Hospital reports little Timmy is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Cops launch an investigation, woman is arrrested. Other women hear about that and say, "I'd better not do that." Problem solved.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome often is undetectable at birth. Thinning of blood vessels in the brain is one. It doesn't show up until one bursts, usually around 40 and kills the person.
100,000 kids who aren't babies, who often have other issues, and a court system that just can't wait to give them back to the bad parents they took them from to start with.
And you know this is how the foster system works ........................because ?
Well, we could talk about how liberal "Do-gooders" make it impossible for white parents to adopt black kids who are in the system, but let's not go there.
This happens in some private agencies not in the state foster system
As a practical matter, adopting a kid with behavioral issues from being born into a battered home beause DCS didn't do its job and take that kid out of there six years ago is asking quite a lot of parents.
Clever! Make the high number of foster kids a state created problem and your solution of dumping an unplanned and unwanted child into the foster system becomes a perfectly acceptable solution to bortion and the unwanted pregnancy.

Read the statistics on the future of foster children. it is a cruel and heartless action.
 
This is all premised upon that debatable, aforementioned "if" the unborn "become persons" under constitutional law. Your knee-jerk pronouncement of such does not determine the facts.

Nonetheless, personhood status does not favor your position per the scenario brought to you (and subsequently unanswered) via post #1941 page 78.


But that's the rub.

The law treats the death of Connor Peterson (a fetus) as murder if his dad killed him (or even if he didn't kill him, but the jury thought he was a shitty husband), but not if his mom kills him (because she had a shitty husband.)

Wdat does that do for the kid? Nothing. And no...that doesnt work with alcoholics, period. Doesnt keep them from drunk driving with their kids in the car. It's funny you think that any such consequences keep addicts from smoking, drinking, doing drugs.

What consequences? Oooh, I had to go to a class with other poor schlubs who got caught with a slightly elevated level.

Besides, using your logic, drunk driving should be a personal choice.

illegitimacy went down. after Roe. Why would it have gone up if abortion was available and legal?
No, it went up.

It went up because once you told a woman she could get an abortion, you told men that they weren't obligated to do "the right thing".
 
Nope...dont make crap up...where did the kids' issues come from if they were dumped at birth the way you're claiming women can "just do instead of aborting".

And no, it's not the 'bad parents' that lose their kids temporarily. There are ~400,000 kids in foster care...only ~100,000 are up for adoption. The other ~300,000 are the ones where the parents are still able to get them back...

So we're back to...where did the 100,000 come from? And obviously even with legal abortion, that number is huge. So...you want to use a failed program...adoption...as an excuse to ban/restrict abortion and produce MORE kids sitting waiting to be adopted.. What a stupid post, continually promoting a failed solution.

Again, there's a waiting list for babies. People are going to the third world for babies.

If you are one of the 100,000 where parental rights have been revoked, you probably have a lot of other issues that parents aren't really ready to deal with.
 
Again, there's a waiting list for babies. People are going to the third world for babies.
Yes there is a waiting list for babies: new born babies; new born, white babies, newborn white babies without physical or emotional problems problems.

Average age of children available for adoption is 8 years old 50%+ are under the age of 10; 27% were teenagers; 7% of the children in foster care are under a year old

Race of children available for adoption
44% white
23% Black
21% Latino
2%American Indian
1% Hawaiian/Asian
8% multiracial

Race of the parents who adopt
91% White
2.6% Latino
2.2% Black
1.3% Asian
1.3% multiracial

% of children in foster care with psychological problems 50% to 80%


Yeah, dumping kids into foster care is a perfect solution to abortion.
 
Which is why so many of them are unadoptable.
We aren't talking about kids, we are talking about babies.
Yes children with psychological problems don't often get adopted..............That's one
Right we aren't talking about kids We are talking about babies...................That's two

Shucks, one more and you would have won the irrelevant answers trophy. Try harder next time, surely you can come up with one more irrelevant answer.
 
Again, there's a waiting list for babies. People are going to the third world for babies.

You repeating yourself doesnt refute anything I wrote, nor answer the questions, nor dispute that the adoption pool is still huge and it doesnt matter how long the list is...people arent adopting the kids. And you want to deny women abortions so that they end up dumping more kids that wont be adopted.

That's not a solution, is it? It's counter-productive and you can only repeat your failed..."but there's a list!"

And yet there's still ~100,000 kids that arent being adopted. Explain how it makes financial or rational sense to deny women abortions just to create more of them? It's not even humane, it's cruel and selfish...shoving your agenda down people's throats and kids suffer.

If you are one of the 100,000 where parental rights have been revoked,

Who said they're all from parents who lost custody? Very few people EVER lose custody unless someone adopts their kids. Otherwise, they remain one of the ~400,000 foster kids in limbo. They're orphans, or kids that got dumped...just like you want.

you probably have a lot of other issues that parents aren't really ready to deal with.

And yet...there they are, dumped...just like you want. The fundie Christian disregard for unwanted children...BLAMING THE CHILDREN FOR NOT BEING ADOPTABLE is disgusting. And yet you want more of them created and neglected and abused and dumped instead of allowing women to have abortions. That kind of fundie Christian delusion is irrational, cruel, and self-righteous. There is no Christian love there "Let the children come to me." Do you know who said that? And He didnt specify "only the easy, normal ones."

Your posts are beyond disgusting.
 
Last edited:
What consequences? Oooh, I had to go to a class with other poor schlubs who got caught with a slightly elevated level.

Besides, using your logic, drunk driving should be a personal choice.

They are children born with developmental and physical handicaps...never to be "normal" and often requiring govt care and funds for their upkeep. Often never finding permanent homes. And you call them "poor schlubs"

Once again: The fundie Christian diregard for unwanted children...BLAMING THE CHILDREN FOR BEING BORN DISABLED OR NOT BEING ADOPTABLE is disgusting. And yet you want more of them created and neglected and abused and dumped instead of allowing women to have abortions. That kind of fundie Christian delusion is irrational, cruel, and self-righteous. There is no Christian love there "Let the children come to me." Do you know who said that? And He didnt specify "only the easy, normal ones."​

And no, recognizing that addicts' behavior cannot be controlled isnt recognizing drunk driving as a legal or moral personal choice.
 
But that's the rub.

The law treats the death of Connor Peterson (a fetus) as murder if his dad killed him (or even if he didn't kill him, but the jury thought he was a shitty husband), but not if his mom kills him (because she had a shitty husband.)
Legal protections specific to the unborn do not signify personhood status...if that's what you're inferring here.
 
Legal protections specific to the unborn do not signify personhood status...if that's what you're inferring here.

He's had this explained to him ad infinitum. We protect all kinds of life...and bring legal charges for destroying them...doesnt recognize any rights for them. Or "personhood." Things like pets, livestock, endangered species, forests, coral reefs, etc.
 
He's had this explained to him ad infinitum. We protect all kinds of life...and bring legal charges for destroying them...doesnt recognize any rights for them. Or "personhood." Things like pets, livestock, endangered species, forests, coral reefs, etc.
The thing is, such specified protections would be entirely redundant if it provided them personhood status.
Though, logic's never been a barrier for the anti-choice crowd.
 
Back
Top Bottom