Roe v Wade Overturned Day 1

[bornaneer]

I'm pro-death, particularly when you review the demographics of the people utilizing abortions the most. They are exactly the people who shouldn't be procreating.

You admitting you are a racist?

 

[roadtrasheer]

You admitting you are a racist?

I'm very slow to call a person a racist. I sort of figured he ment poor people or people making piss poor decisions not people of color. Could be wrong.

 

[bornaneer]

I'm very slow to call a person a racist. I sort of figured he ment poor people or people making piss poor decisions not people of color. Could be wrong.

The demographics tell the story.

 

[SoCo]

You can commit suicide. I mean if you're so pro death & believe as you just stated , you do have options. You a free to do so at any time. Unless you believe in for thee not me . You are free to help mother earth

I'm not selfish enough or mentally weak enough for that to be an option. Suicide is all about thinning the herd and darwinsim at its best.

 

[SoCo]

I'm very slow to call a person a racist. I sort of figured he ment poor people or people making piss poor decisions not people of color. Could be wrong.

Yep. Most are poorly educated, low income, high crime areas that are overpopulated as it is. The list goes on.....

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

 

[TarHeelEer]

demographics of the people utilizing abortions the most. They are exactly the people who shouldn't be procreating.

Yep. Most are poorly educated, low income, high crime areas that are overpopulated as it is. The list goes on.....

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

 

[roadtrasheer]

I'm not selfish enough or mentally weak enough for that to be an option. Suicide is all about thinning the herd and darwinsim at its best.

Can't call it selfish if you believe there is to many people, it would be generous.

 

[atlkvb]

I didn't ask about one's date of birth; rather how old you are. You, like everyone else on the planet, will answer it based on your date of birth, but you are arguing you are actually alive longer.

Why don't fetus have social security numbers? Why don't they qualify for tax dependents for the parents? It seems everyone is ok treating fetuses as non-humans except for this issue. It is a farce.

OK I'll follow your logic and see if you can make sense of it. My argument is the fetus IS alive and human, you're suggesting perhaps it isn't because we can't claim them as tax deductions?

Well that's a government policy, it has no bearing on the essential nature of what the baby is or if it's human? We are simply allowing the government to determine when that baby is alive and tax deductible correct?

For instance two gay women who live together and Love one another are not satisfied with their own recognition of their love and commitment to each other. Instead they want the government to recognize their commitment through Matrimony. Marriage then is re defined as not a union between one man and one woman, but now two women, which we now recognize and they accept correct?

Well then how about two men? Or a dog and a man. Or a woman and a cat? Essentially making marriage anything government says it is? Just because government recognizes what marriage has been redefined to suddenly changes what it is? Why don't we allow that? Or should we? Apparently Folks who want that recognition are not satisfied with calling it what it is, they want it changed to fit their own definitions, and we should let government comply? Correct? Why not?

So likewise with a fetus, government doesn't recognize its tax deductibility. Therefore it's no longer human? We comply. Why? So it's not human three days before birth? It's not human two months before birth? It's not human even two minutes before birth? Why is it only human after birth and then only because the government says it's now "tax deductible"? Can you explain that?

Using your best logic, tell us why the government gets to determine what Marriage is or isn't, then at what point a fetus becomes human? I'm listening.

 

[atlkvb]

I didn't ask about one's date of birth; rather how old you are. You, like everyone else on the planet, will answer it based on your date of birth, but you are arguing you are actually alive longer.

Why is when you give your age, you aren't adding 9 months to your date of birth?

No one knows the exact day they were conceived (not even the Mother even though it's her body and her choice). We have no control over or access to that process. So we give our dates of birth as the day we were born, although we were all fully alive months before that actual date.

 

[SoCo]

OK I'll follow your logic and see if you can make sense of it. My argument is the fetus IS alive and human, you're suggesting perhaps it isn't because we can't claim them as tax deductions?

No. I'm saying people only give a **** about the rights of the unborn when it comes to abortion. Other than that issue, the rights of the unborn are of no concern to the same people. I'm calling ********.

 

[atlkvb]

No. I'm saying people only give a **** about the rights of the unborn when it comes to abortion. Other than that issue, the rights of the unborn are of no concern to the same people. I'm calling ********.

I absolutely disagree with your analysis. My argument was and remains the fetus is human, and alive and deserves protection and preservation because of that ontological fact alone. You suggesting no one cares about it until after it's born is a complete bastardization of mine and the entire Pro-Life movement's essential argument for protecting and preserving it!

 

[atlkvb]

Exactly. Just because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are developing, doesn't mean they can automatically be granted full position status as a human being.

Agreed. Full position and status are not synonymous here. A fetus is fully human,(status) though obviously not fully developed. (position). A baby girl is a female, (status) but not yet a woman. (position)

 

[atlkvb]

No. I'm saying people only give a **** about the rights of the unborn when it comes to abortion. Other than that issue, the rights of the unborn are of no concern to the same people. I'm calling ********.

What is pre-Natal care?

 

[atlkvb]

Yep. Most are poorly educated, low income, high crime areas that are overpopulated as it is. The list goes on.....

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

Then why don't we simply exterminate all poor kids? You favor that? It's exactly what you're arguing for.

Explain?

 

[atlkvb]

I'm very slow to call a person a racist. I sort of figured he ment poor people or people making piss poor decisions not people of color. Could be wrong.

I'd prefer he explain exactly who he meant?

 

[atlkvb]

Was he talking about White folks?

 

[atlkvb]

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

I'd rather they pay for their own kids, instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for their convenience abortions on demand. That simply encourages more of them (abortions) and subsequently subsidizes their continuing irresponsible sexual behavior.

 

[SoCo]

I absolutely disagree with your analysis. My argument was and remains the fetus is human, and alive and deserves protection and preservation because of that ontological fact alone. You suggesting no one cares about it until after it's born is a complete bastardization of mine and the entire Pro-Life movement's essential argument for protecting and preserving it!

It is a human fetus that is alive, not a human being. It may become a human being, but then again, it might not. I do know human fetus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[SoCo]

I'd rather they pay for their own kids, instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for their convenience abortions on demand. That simply encourages more of them (abortions) and subsequently subsidizes their continuing irresponsible sexual behavior.

Don't allow taxpayer money to pay for the abortion. Fine by me.

I'd rather pay for neither, but if taxpayers have to pay, the cost of an abortion is insignificant compared to the costs of raising a child.

 

[SoCo]

What is pre-Natal care?

care for a zygote, embryo and/or fetus.

Not sure where that gets us.

 

[SoCo]

Agreed. Full position and status are not synonymous here. A fetus is fully human,(status) though obviously not fully developed. (position). A baby girl is a female, (status) but not yet a woman. (position)

talk about semantics. Might as well be using binary pronouns at this point.

 

[SoCo]

Then why don't we simply exterminate all poor kids? You favor that? It's exactly what you're arguing for.

Explain?

Why exterminate human beings when we can exterminate the zygote, embryo or fetus who has never seen the light of day?

More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[atlkvb]

Don't allow taxpayer money to pay for the abortion. Fine by me.

I'd rather pay for neither, but if taxpayers have to pay, the cost of an abortion is insignificant compared to the costs of raising a child.

All right (I'm not challenging your argument, I'm asking you to defend it) so why not just exterminate all poor kids who are a drag on the taxpayers? Is that not what you're arguing?

If poor kids aren't worth paying for before they're born, why can't they be just as worthless after they're born? If that's not your argument, then what is it?

 

[atlkvb]

Why exterminate human beings when we can exterminate the zygote, embryo or fetus who has never seen the light of day?

More than one way to skin a cat.

If we sadly get to the point of determining who lives or who dies based on our own suggestions of their economic viability, the day will come when uber-wealthy folks decide people like you and me don't serve to live either.

You seem like a pretty smart fellow, I can't believe you're arguing for Life based one's status relative to how much they cost taxpayers?

Let me ask you...are you a Parent? How much are your kids worth?

 

[atlkvb]

talk about semantics. Might as well be using binary pronouns at this point.

No what I'm asking you to explain is the essential difference as it pertains to their "humanity". The SUPCO decision in part didn't touch that issue and left it up to the States to decide. Roe v Wade arbitrarily set unsupportable parameters on when Life begins. So, the Justices decided to set that aside, and simply declare a right to Life is inherent in the Constitution. If we want to as a society change that, it's up to the people to make that decision. (on when Life begins)

It's amazing to me how those who don't/won't argue for the humanity of a fetus, are so willing to suggest it in essence is NOT human? Yet, they cannot scientifically or morally explain what it then is? Can you?

Why not?

 

[atlkvb]

care for a zygote, embryo and/or fetus.

Not sure where that gets us.

Well for starters it is something that's of value, is alive, is "treatable" and obviously not just a worthless "clump of cells" correct?

(so we are making progress)

If pre-natal care can be administered to something that's a non entity, why do we administer it? If it's not alive or a living organism that responds to treatment stimuli, then what is the point of treating it at all? (you're arguing we can just as easily kill it and save ourselves the trouble correct?)

 

[atlkvb]

Why exterminate human beings when we can exterminate the zygote, embryo or fetus who has never seen the light of day?

More than one way to skin a cat.

I'm using your logic and extending the time line out to fully born poor kids. You're arguing they're worthless and should be exterminated before they're born...I'm asking why not do the same thing once they're born and costing us even more? Are they not still equally as worthless?

Logically, you cannot justify your terms on what makes them worthless pre or post birth. (at least you haven't)

 

[atlkvb]

Hey @SoCo ...not sure how much you earn (it's irrelevant but for purposes of illustration here follow me please)

Now we know Trump, Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Musk, Soros and folks like that are uber wealthy correct? Now let's just suppose as a consortium, all those rich guys get together and decide anyone who doesn't earn at least 20% of their pre-tax income, doesn't deserve to live or procreate?

Again not sure what you earn, but would you be OK with them enforcing such a decree, to assure only their economic progeny get to promulgate the species? Would you make the cut? After all compared to them, we're all just a drag on their vast resources, so shouldn't they get to order the rest of us mere poorer plebes exterminated during gestation simply to protect their investments?

You don't need to explain your answer, just a simple "Yes" or "No" in your reply will help me understand what your entire thesis in arguing for choice abortions based on one's economic status is grounded in?

So "Yes" or "No"?

 

[atlkvb]

It is a human fetus that is alive, not a human being. It may become a human being, but then again, it might not. I do know human fetus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

I linked you earlier ITT to an article that suggested the presence of DNA in the fetus qualifies it as human. Scientifically, what's the counterargument to that? (you never responded to it scientifically)

also excerpted from ITT
the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow ‘generate’ the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious ‘manufacturer’ directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.” The definition specifies that organisms that meet the criteria are living beings; therefore, in this circumstance, human beings.

 

[TarHeelEer]

 

[atlkvb]

Planned Parenthood was set up to exterminate "undesirables" ie: poor people of color. That was the stated mission of their founder Margaret Sanger...who is idolized by the Left.

If that's not the most abjectly racist policy ever practiced on an entire race of people, I'd like for someone who supports on demand abortions for poor Black people to tell me what's worse?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/

excerpt:
In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial "Negro Project," wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for “the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization". She further stated: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

She was was racist

@SoCo ...comments? Isn't this the central thesis of your arguments for choice abortions based on the poverty class of the fetus?

Most are poorly educated, low income, high crime areas that are overpopulated as it is. The list goes on.....

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

How does your position stated here differ from hers?

Unless you can tell me how your position is different from Margaret Sanger's?

Can you?

 

[atlkvb]

Like others posting in this thread, I hesitate to call someone a "racist". The word is so abused and misused now a days, it's almost as pointless as well as it's meaningless. That being said I've tried to have a dialogue with @SoCo in this thread to understand why he bases his call for choice abortions on the economic status of the fetus? It was this comment in support of that which causes me to suggest his position may indeed be rooted in race:

He stated

Yep. Most are poorly educated, low income, high crime areas that are overpopulated as it is. The list goes on.....

I'd rather pay for their abortions than pay for their kids.

So while he doesn't specify "race" with this comment, he still nevertheless doesn't specify exactly who he was referring to? I've posted the comments of known eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who's stated her objective was to exterminate poor people of color! If he cannot tell us how his stated position differs from hers, or who exactly he was referring to in the quote I've also posted here (actually more Whites than Blacks are poor and chose abortions) then I'll simply have no choice but to consider him also a straight up racist.

He and I don't disagree on much, but on this we are unfortunately diametrically opposed, particularly if he cannot or will not explain himself?

 

[SoCo]

All right (I'm not challenging your argument, I'm asking you to defend it) so why not just exterminate all poor kids who are a drag on the taxpayers? Is that not what you're arguing?

nope. That is you changing what I said because you think you have a point to make.

 

[SoCo]

You seem like a pretty smart fellow, I can't believe you're arguing for Life based one's status relative to how much they cost taxpayers?

thats because I’m not.

Let me ask you...are you a Parent? How much are your kids worth?

a lot more than any fetus. And so are yours.

 

[atlkvb]

nope. That is you changing what I said because you think you have a point to make.

Fair enough. So then explain yourself? Tell me exactly what you are saying?

 

[atlkvb]

thats because I’m not.

a lot more than any fetus. And so are yours.

Agreed, mine are priceless. Yet, you argue some aren't worth keeping alive due to their economic status? So at what point are they not worth keeping alive? You've already stated if they're poor it's OK to kill them. How poor is poor to justify their extermination?

 

[atlkvb]

All right @SoCo ... just reading back through the thread here & it's clear to me you're not going to answer the numerous questions I've asked you for clarification of your stated positions. That's fine. (a non answer is sufficient for me)

I'm done on this topic with you. If you could explain yourself, you would have done so by now. You won't (or can't) so there is no need to continue this dialogue. It's pointless.

Good day Sir.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[SoCo]

All right @SoCo ... just reading back through the thread here & it's clear to me you're not going to answer the numerous questions I've asked you for clarification of your stated positions. That's fine. (a non answer is sufficient for me)

I'm done on this topic with you. If you could explain yourself, you would have done so by now. You won't (or can't) so there is no need to continue this dialogue. It's pointless.

Good day Sir.

My position is clear, you rewrite what I said. Nowhere have I ever said anything about poor kids yet you have asked a half dozen questions about that. Stop intentionally changing what I say and pretending you had a "gotcha" moment. It is silly.

And by the way, if you are going to send multiple responses to each message and ask a million questions, I'm not going to respond. You apparently have far more time than me.

 

[atlkvb]

My position is clear, you rewrite what I said. Nowhere have I ever said anything about poor kids yet you have asked a half dozen questions about that. Stop intentionally changing what I say and pretending you had a "gotcha" moment. It is silly.

And by the way, if you are going to send multiple responses to each message and ask a million questions, I'm not going to respond. You apparently have far more time than me.

I realize I wasted my time trying to get a straight answer from you or even an explanation to your stated positions. I apologize and promise I won't waste either of our time anymore.