• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001?

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001? Try Democrat endorsed policy. Abortion killed more unborn black children in 2001 than the top 15 causes of death for blacks. Abortion ended more black lives than heart disease, cancer, and all homicides. 287,709 blacks died in America in 2001 while 312,375 unborn blacks were aborted. For every black person that passed away in 2001, one unborn black child was aborted.
Click Here for 2001 Black Death Rates
Click Here for 2001 Black Abortion Rates


Carnell Knowledge
 

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Let us suppose that President Bush made abortion illegal tomorrow. What would that do? What would happen? When the Patriot Act was implemented, many liberal minded politicians across the country said that their towns would not cooperate. In many states, Gay Marriage was rejected by the voters only to be overturned by unelected judges. In California, the voters passed Prop 187. The 1994 measure denied taxpayer-funded services to illegal aliens. It won with 60 percent of the vote. The courts stopped enforcement of it. If Bush did make abortion illegal, some activist judge would overturn it, Planned Parenthood would refuse to comply and the ACLU would be having a fit.





http://www.carnellknowledge.com/
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TheBaldMan said:
Let us suppose that President Bush made abortion illegal tomorrow. What would that do? What would happen?
I think you need to learn a little bit more about law and government in the USA. The President does not have the legal right to make abortion illegal, ever. What you're suggesting is a dictatorship...
 

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Ok, change that to “Bush asks Congress to support legislation that outlaws abortion.” Satisfied?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TheBaldMan said:
Ok, change that to “Bush asks Congress to support legislation that outlaws abortion.” Satisfied?
Sorry, can't happen that way either. There aren't any Federal laws against abortion, nor would one ever pass.

Abortion is legal, and will always be legal, no matter what. That is reality. Abortion is even legal in Italy!

Abortion is also a State issue, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that Abortion IS legal so no State can pass a law outlawing it unless the Supreme Court first says they can...
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
TheBaldMan said:
What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001? Try Democrat endorsed policy. Abortion killed more unborn black children in 2001 than the top 15 causes of death for blacks. Abortion ended more black lives than heart disease, cancer, and all homicides. 287,709 blacks died in America in 2001 while 312,375 unborn blacks were aborted. For every black person that passed away in 2001, one unborn black child was aborted.
Click Here for 2001 Black Death Rates
Click Here for 2001 Black Abortion Rates


Carnell Knowledge
According to your post, actually, the #1 killer of blacks in 2001 was heart disease, cancer, homicides, and whatever else that report included.

The #1 killer of potential blacks was abortion.

:doh
 

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Scientist, not Right-Wing Christians, say that life begins at conception.
_________________________________________________________

Conception (BABY) noun
The process of a sperm and an egg joining and causing a baby to start to form:
at/from the moment of conception.


_________________________________________________________
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
TheBaldMan said:
Scientist, not Right-Wing Christians, say that life begins at conception.
_________________________________________________________

Conception (BABY) noun
The process of a sperm and an egg joining and causing a baby to start to form:
at/from the moment of conception.


_________________________________________________________


Funny, I didn't see the word "life" in there at all.
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
TheBaldMan said:
I guess baby doesn't count?
and causing a baby to start to form

That means there isn't a baby yet, its still forming
 

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
You can parse words all you want. Scientists, even Liberal Scientists, believe life begins at conception. This has never been disputed.
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
TheBaldMan said:
You can parse words all you want. Scientists, even Liberal Scientists, believe life begins at conception. This has never been disputed.
From Roe V Wade:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.
Where do you get your stuff from?
 

TheBaldMan

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
If life does not begin at conception then why was Scott Peterson charged for two murders?
 

Bluefire

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
TheBaldMan said:
If life does not begin at conception then why was Scott Peterson charged for two murders?
Let me copy and paste an answer that I wrote earlier today to the Scott Peterson question.

Basing your argument on the Scott Peterson case is a
very, very bad argument however.

From http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...20030422.shtml:

No one would deny that Laci Peterson was a person under the law. But what about the unborn child/baby/fetus/product of conception she was carrying? In order to make the "special circumstances" part of the law stick and allow the state to seek the death penalty under its provision, that entity Laci Peterson was carrying would have to be deemed a "person" under the same legal definition that applies to her.

It is here that the dictionary and the law part company. The dictionary defines a "person" as "a human being; individual." But the Supreme Court has rewritten that to assign personhood (and thus the law's protection) only after the redefined baby is born and takes its first breath.

From the statements of family members, Laci Peterson wanted her baby, but her desire did not confer personhood on the child, according to court rulings. A woman can legally kill her baby until the child's body has fully emerged from her body. But if Laci Peterson wanted her baby, can the law be on her side and impose the ultimate penalty on the one who illegally took that child's life? The answer to that question will make this trial compelling beyond whatever other facts emerge.

This gives some good background on the case and presents the legal problem. Can we impose the death penalty as the murder of an unborn person IF the mother wanted her baby, was planning on having it, and there is nothing known at the time of the murder that would prevent the child from being born?

Later in this article we have the authors conclusion, which is basically the same as yours:

If Scott Peterson is convicted of double murder and sentenced to die, that will mean a California court will have determined that the second victim in this case was, in fact, a person before the law.
However, this conclusion isn't exactly the truth. The conclusion that the court determined that the second victim was a person before the law is not the correct conclusion.

The California court didn't determine that the second victim was a person before the law, but rather that it would become one. How was it established that Lacy Peterson's pregnancy would result in a person? By the fact that there were no complications and that Lacy Peterson was planning on giving birth.

It was established that Lacy Peterson had chosen to waive her 14th amendment rights, the right to privacy, that gives the mother the protection to terminate her pregnancy (from Roe v Wade).

This doesn't mean that the unborn fetus was a person, but rather that we can prosecute under the murder statutes someone who would become a person as protected by the law in the future as long as there is no reasonable doubt that they would not have been born.
 

zerochik

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
TheBaldMan said:
What was the #1 killer of blacks in 2001? Try Democrat endorsed policy. Abortion killed more unborn black children in 2001 than the top 15 causes of death for blacks. Abortion ended more black lives than heart disease, cancer, and all homicides. 287,709 blacks died in America in 2001 while 312,375 unborn blacks were aborted. For every black person that passed away in 2001, one unborn black child was aborted.
So are you saying this is some sort of conspiracy against black people? I think the numbers are so high because they happen to be the responsible ones and get the abortion rather then put their kid on the street or go on welfare.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
zerochik said:
So are you saying this is some sort of conspiracy against black people? I think the numbers are so high because they happen to be the responsible ones and get the abortion rather then put their kid on the street or go on welfare.
no, they're just trying to convince themselves that we're somehow hypocritical in pushing for equal rights, but not disallowing black women from getting abortions. I don't get it, but I don't get most of their logic either.
 

zerochik

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
no, they're just trying to convince themselves that we're somehow hypocritical in pushing for equal rights, but not disallowing black women from getting abortions. I don't get it, but I don't get most of their logic either.
aw, ok. now things make sense, sort of :think:
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
zerochik said:
aw, ok. now things make sense, sort of :think:
that's how it goes, you always just kind of get where they're trying to go with it, but then it's like, "Are they dead serious? Do they actually think this **** makes sense?"
 

zerochik

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
galenrox said:
that's how it goes, you always just kind of get where they're trying to go with it, but then it's like, "Are they dead serious? Do they actually think this **** makes sense?"
WOW! i thought i was the only one in the world who thought that! awsome... i have discovered another logical thinker!
 
Top Bottom