• 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!

What is your plan for dealing with 800,000 children each year if you ban abortion?

GummyVitamins said:
I'm a fan of the right to privacy. No idea what that has to do with killing a human though. Am I allowed to kill you in privacy?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the legal arguments in both decisions is telling... Perhaps you should go read both opinions then come back...
 
All you have to do is watch the very well made historical documentaries about abortion being banned in Romania.

Tens of thousands of children in orphanages, crammed in and with very little human contact. Growing up with severe developmental abnormalities leading to generations of societal dysfunction. Their society still has not recovered. All because their religious right demanded right to life yet had no real plans to care for the children.

Pro-choice is crucial for a functional society. You've never met people who suffer so much that they wish they weren't born.

It's wrong to force women to get abortions (China) and it's wrong to force women to give birth (Romania).

I hope the SCOTUS right wing stack doesn't happen and that we get a good 10-15 more years of a sane court. By then the evangelical lobby will have reduced numbers and no longer be a threat.
 
BlueTex said:
And yet, as of this afternoon, the state of Texas has 995 children waiting to be adopted...

Error

www.dfps.state.tx.us
Click to expand...

Which is why I do not understand the disconnect with the numbers; everything seems to indicate the US has more couples waiting to adopt than there are children to adopt, yet these are still children waiting to be adopted.

Bureaucracy make my brain throb....
 
GummyVitamins said:
So you believe the intention behind the constitution was to eventually allow the killing of unborn humans. Can you explain where you came to that conclusion? Which is why motor vehicle laws are regulated by the state. You're hurting your argument with your example, not helping.So explain the broad interpretation of how we allow abortions? Your constitutional theory of a "living document" is controversial as it is. You're still not taking it to the next level.
Click to expand...

Not taking "it" to the next level (whatever "it" is)? Sure I am. Haven't you read in liberal revisionist history that the founders after a night of hard drinking put hidden stuff about killing fetuses, driving cars in the Constitution. They also let states make laws to refine federal rights just to make it more confusing. The last thing Thomas Jeff. said before dawn that morning was, "Pass that bottle will you, I'm making this thing a living document"


You want an explanation for how we allow abortions? Here it is:
www.law.cornell.edu

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
weaver2 said:
Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?
Click to expand...

I tend to cringe every time I hear someone use the term "solution" when proposing any culling of a population.

Beware of any misconceived pragmatism which leads down a pathway which attaches a subjective opinion on the quality or necessity of a human life. But hey, if you reclassify anyone as either not human--- or sub human.... then sure, why not--- anything goes!


Not all roads lead to Rome. Some lead here:

auschwitz.jpg




Hope I answered your question?
 
GummyVitamins said:
I've read both opinions. It's a crappy interpretation of the law. Why don't you justify it in your own words?
Click to expand...

Then do you believe states are empowered to outlaw homosexuality, contraceptives and abortion? What about prohibiting unmarried couples from possessing contraception?
 
Last edited:
Court Jester said:
I tend to cringe every time I hear someone use the term "solution" when proposing any culling of a population. Beware of any misconceived pragmatism which leads down a pathway which attaches a subjective opinion on the quality or necessity of a human life. But hey, if you reclassify anyone as either not human--- or sub human.... then sure, why not--- anything goes!
Not all roads lead to Rome. Some lead here:(to Auschwitz). Hope I answered your question?
Click to expand...

My question was: What is your solution for taking care of 700,000 children who need caring for, not how will you cull them. Did you miss the meaning of the OP on purpose so you could imply I was a Nazi sympathizer or are you just not very capable of understanding questions.
 
weaver2 said:
Not taking "it" to the next level (whatever "it" is)? Sure I am. Haven't you read in liberal revisionist history that the founders after a night of hard drinking put hidden stuff about killing fetuses, driving cars in the Constitution. They also let states make laws to refine federal rights just to make it more confusing. The last thing Thomas Jeff. said before dawn that morning was, "Pass that bottle will you, I'm making this thing a living document"


You want an explanation for how we allow abortions? Here it is:
www.law.cornell.edu

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
Again, I've read the legal opinions. It's flaky legal reasoning. Use your words to explain why it isnt. The obvious irony is that you can't, yet feel compelled to die on the hill regardless.
 
weaver2 said:
My question was: What is your solution for taking care of 700,000 children who need caring for, not how will you cull them. Did you miss the meaning of the OP on purpose so you could imply I was a Nazi sympathizer or are you just not very capable of understanding questions.
Click to expand...

I would never imply that you are anyone else is a Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer. My post was only meant as a warning FOR US ALL to consider what we are talking about when talking about "solutions". Your question seemed to rest on what happens if 700,000 developing human lives in the womb are allowed to go to full term. My reply does not answer that part of your question, but raises another question about making life and death decisions based on injecting our subjective views on what we foresee the quality--- or lack of quality, of the lives of others will be. I don't believe we should be doing that; should NEVER go down that path.

One could ask, well, what is the quality of life of anyone; the poor, the uneducated, those with health issues---and then which "solutions" we could come up with to remedy those matters? Isn't that risky? Isn't that exactly what led Germany down a very wrong path; the idea that they could know which lives were more worthy than others, and how to find a solution to that?

How do you think anyone in our long human history cared for unplanned or unwanted pregnancies and babies? Didn't humans (especially mothers) just do their best despite the circumstances? Isn't that a solution still available now? Have you ever met an adult, maybe a friend of yours, who was initially an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Do you get the impression that they value their own lives any less than you do yours?
 
weaver2 said:
If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?
Click to expand...

Human traffic as many as we can overseas and eat the rest.

Really quite simple.
 
Atreus21 said:
Well, we certainly wouldn't kill them. So that's a start.
Click to expand...

Well not outright.

No, most Conservatives would let their unfortunate economic circumstances, their being born into abject poverty, or into crime ridden forgotten neighborhoods and to broken homes, oft with abusive parent(s) in order to wean them off to the cemetery by attrition. All while patting themselves on their hypocritical Conservative backs thinking they had done something worthwhile for humanity.

Woo Hoo!
 
Court Jester said:
I would never imply that you are anyone else is a Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer. My post was only meant as a warning FOR US ALL to consider what we are talking about when talking about "solutions". Your question seemed to rest on what happens if 700,000 developing human lives in the womb are allowed to go to full term. My reply does not answer that part of your question, but raises another question about making life and death decisions based on injecting our subjective views on what we foresee the quality--- or lack of quality, of the lives of others will be. I don't believe we should be doing that; should NEVER go down that path.

One could ask, well, what is the quality of life of anyone; the poor, the uneducated, those with health issues---and then which "solutions" we could come up with to remedy those matters?

How do you think anyone in our long human history cared for unplanned or unwanted pregnancies and babies? Didn't humans (especially mothers) just do their best despite the circumstances? Isn't that a solution still available now? Have you ever met an adult, maybe a friend of yours, who was initially an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Do you get the impression that they value their own lives any less than yours?
Click to expand...

This isn't a morality question. It isn't solved by saying women should just take care of their kids. It's a question of how cities, states, and the federal government will deal with the sudden need for more schools and teachers, more day care, more social services, expanded foster care, increased transportation, medical, housing, needs, because the birth rate is going to go up by 700,000 children every year. That's a 17% increase over the present numbers of births' year in the US. Forget morality for just once and focus on something practical.
 
Court Jester said:
I would never imply that you are anyone else is a Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer. My post was only meant as a warning FOR US ALL to consider what we are talking about when talking about "solutions". Your question seemed to rest on what happens if 700,000 developing human lives in the womb are allowed to go to full term. My reply does not answer that part of your question, but raises another question about making life and death decisions based on injecting our subjective views on what we foresee the quality--- or lack of quality, of the lives of others will be. I don't believe we should be doing that; should NEVER go down that path.
One could ask, well, what is the quality of life of anyone; the poor, the uneducated, those with health issues---and then which "solutions" we could come up with to remedy those matters?
How do you think anyone in our long human history cared for unplanned or unwanted pregnancies and babies? Didn't humans (especially mothers) just do their best despite the circumstances? Isn't that a solution still available now? Have you ever met an adult, maybe a friend of yours, who was initially an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Do you get the impression that they value their own lives any less than yours?
Click to expand...

Turn off the morality machine for just a moment. This is a question of how local, state and federal governments are going to manage a sudden 17% increase in population.
 
weaver2 said:
This isn't a morality question. It isn't solved by saying women should just take care of their kids. It's a question of how cities, states, and the federal government will deal with the sudden need for more schools and teachers, more day care, more social services, expanded foster care, increased transportation, medical, housing, needs, because the birth rate is going to go up by 700,000 children every year. That's a 17% increase over the present numbers of births' year in the US. Forget morality for just once and focus on something practical.
Click to expand...

The problem with the way you like all liberals look at the issue, is that you believe that childcare, transportation, healthcare, housing, and all other social programs are the responsibility of the nanny state and not the responsibility of PARENTS.

The solution is really simple: Don't risk getting pregnant until you are mature enough and can afford to take care of a child on your own. Preferably with a committed father in the home as a partner. After that, then those unfortunate cases where rape, or child abuse are the cause of these pregnancies, then we aren't talking about almost a million children, and yes, as a society we want to step in and provide the social services we need to in those cases.
 
Court Jester said:
The problem with the way you like all liberals look at the issue, is that you believe that childcare, transportation, healthcare, housing, and all other social programs are the responsibility of the nanny state and not the responsibility of PARENTS.

The solution is really simple: Don't risk getting pregnant until you are mature enough and can afford to take care of a child on your own. Preferably with a committed father in the home as a partner. After that, then those unfortunate cases where rape, or child abuse are the cause of these pregnancies, then we aren't talking about almost a million children, and yes, as a society we want to step in and provide the social services we need to in those cases.
Click to expand...

Should states be able to make it a crime a for unmarried persons to posses birth control?
 
Court Jester said:
The problem with the way you like all liberals look at the issue, is that you believe that childcare, transportation, healthcare, housing, and all other social programs are the responsibility of the nanny state and not the responsibility of PARENTS.

The solution is really simple: Don't risk getting pregnant until you are mature enough and can afford to take care of a child on your own. Preferably with a committed father in the home as a partner. After that, then those unfortunate cases where rape, or child abuse are the cause of these pregnancies, then we aren't talking about almost a million children, and yes, as a society we want to step in and provide the social services we need to in those cases.
Click to expand...
I support feeding hungry children.



You dont
 
Bum said:
Which is why I do not understand the disconnect with the numbers; everything seems to indicate the US has more couples waiting to adopt than there are children to adopt, yet these are still children waiting to be adopted.

Bureaucracy make my brain throb....
Click to expand...


Because they want a lily white, healthy infant.
 
Court Jester said:
Have you ever met an adult, maybe a friend of yours, who was initially an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Do you get the impression that they value their own lives any less than you do yours?
Click to expand...

I was an unwanted pregnancy. I was rejected at birth and given up for adoption. The **** should have aborted all her pregnancies.
 
[
weaver2 said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 So, you can't read or you can't understand or you are just too lazy to do your own work. Pick one.
Click to expand...
This is circular logic. I have read it and I understand their position. It's wrong. Why don't you read it and summarize it using logic? Because it is you who are the lazy one. You're asking me to prove a negative. I am certainly capable of disagreeing with bad judicial opinions. The amount of effort you've put into dodging the question should have been more than enough effort to explain your reasoning. The reason you haven't is because you are incapable. That is obvious to anyone following this conversation. But, I have enjoyed your projecting. I do enjoy irony.
 
BlueTex said:
Then do you believe states are empowered to outlaw homosexuality, contraceptives and abortion? What about prohibiting unmarried couples from possessing contraception?
Click to expand...
Your confusing your morality with legal precedent. When you allow unelected judges to decree their morality on hundreds of millions of people you will one day find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's morality you dislike. That is why there is a legislature. That is also why states have their own rights.
 
LouC said:
Well not outright.

No, most Conservatives would let their unfortunate economic circumstances, their being born into abject poverty, or into crime ridden forgotten neighborhoods and to broken homes, oft with abusive parent(s) in order to wean them off to the cemetery by attrition. All while patting themselves on their hypocritical Conservative backs thinking they had done something worthwhile for humanity.

Woo Hoo!
Click to expand...
So your concern is the children would be raised in places run by Democrats? There is another solution for that without killing them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom