Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 23rd, 2011, 01:22 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Georgia Considers Outlawing Abortions Based on Race, Gender



By Stephen Clark - FOXNews.com







Georgia lawmakers are poised to take up acontroversial bill that would outlaw abortions prompted by the baby's race orgender, an issue that has inspired a billboard campaign claiming a racialconspiracy is behind the termination of pregnancies.



Arehealth care providers using abortion to curb the growth of the U.S. blackpopulation?



http://www.foxnews.c...ed-race-gender/



The group pushing this campaign has createdtheir own website to further their politically correct and unsubstantiatedfallacious assertions here:



http://www.toomanyaborted.com/



What the FoxNews article and the group’swebsite fail to address is the fact that Black teens have the highest teenpregnancy rate. For young women age 15-19, black teens are most likely tobecome pregnant (134 per 1,000 women). Slightly lower rates occur amongHispanics (131 per 1,000) followed by non-Hispanic whites (48 per 1,000).



http://womensissues....eenpregancy.htm



Georgia is number 8 on the top 10 list ofstates with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies.



http://womensissues....nPregStates.htm



“Davis noted that in 2008, blacks made up 30percent of the population in Georgia but more than 57 percent of the abortions.”



That’s because, as stated above, blacks havethe highest teen pregnancy rates; ergo abortion rates among black women will behigher than other races.



“Davis said one study shows there is a directcorrelation between the location of most abortion clinics in urban areas andthe number of abortions by black women. In Georgia, she said, 100 percent ofthe clinics are in urban areas. Nationwide, it's 75 percent, she said.”



Again, because the teen pregnancy rates areso high among minorities that those abortion clinics are nearest to urbanareas; it’s basic supply and demand, and that is a fact and it cannot bedisputed.



From toomanyaborted.com: “Today, abortionkills more African-Americans, per year, than heart disease, cancer, respiratorydisease, accidents, homicides, suicide, and cancer–combined.3 Abortions in theblack community occur at 3x the rate of those among the white population and 2xthat of all other races combined.4 The truth screams loud and clear–we arekilling our very future.”



The real truth is that there are more than143 MILLION unwanted/orphaned children worldwide! Let me say that again…thereare more than 143 MILLION unwanted/orphaned children worldwide!



That being said, we do not need to add to thegrowing population problem that this planet faces by adding more people that neitherthe earth nor our social-economic means can support.



Moreover, these pregnancies are just that,pregnancies…not “babies” or “African-Americans” (hyphenated names being utterlydivisive, but I digress as that is another argument). That which is conceivedbetween human beings is merely human in origin, but that does not equate thatconception equal to an actual “human being.” The conception has the potentialto become an actual human being, but that which is potential cannot be an actualsimultaneously. It is physically, biologically, and physiologically impossibleand that is a fact that cannot be argued otherwise. No matter how much you wantto believe otherwise, based either on religion or just personal conviction;scientific fact trumps your unsubstantiated opinion.



The only real fact or truth printed on theirsite is the following statement



Men need to step upand own up to their responsibility as fathers.”



It’s easy for a man to convince and get agirl or woman pregnant and walk away, since it is the woman who has to carrythat which he participated in creating. However, as the law would have it, theman has little to no rights in any decision that the woman would have. How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.



gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 01:53 PM   #2
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,407
Quote:
How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.


I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all. If a man gets to decide that he wants a child and the woman does not, it is the woman who has to incubate a child even if she doesn't want to, if the laws favored a man having a stake in the decision. And that is wrong.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 02:17 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.


I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all. If a man gets to decide that he wants a child and the woman does not, it is the woman who has to incubate a child even if she doesn't want to, if the laws favored a man having a stake in the decision. And that is wrong.



As legal history has shown, the man has never had the upper hand in court decisions in either custody cases or cases where the child has not even been born yet (i.e. a man, nor a court, cannot force a woman to give birth that which was conceived she does not want).



So with all due respect, your point is moot.



TS
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 03:42 PM   #4
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1308866000' post='338926

Quote:
How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.


I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all. If a man gets to decide that he wants a child and the woman does not, it is the woman who has to incubate a child even if she doesn't want to, if the laws favored a man having a stake in the decision. And that is wrong.



As legal history has shown, the man has never had the upper hand in court decisions in either custody cases or cases where the child has not even been born yet (i.e. a man, nor a court, cannot force a woman to give birth that which was conceived she does not want).



So with all due respect, your point is moot.



TS


I see we've got ourselves another anti-woman character on board. I think you have misunderstood my point, a point that is not moot as it directly refers to your comment, the one that I quoted.



As legal history has shown it is only in recent history that a woman had any legal rights or personhood at all. Now, we have finally come to the point where the Consitution is applied to women as well, and Constitutionally, we women have a right to decide what happens in our own bodies.



A fetus being created by a man and a woman through intercourse does not transfer ownership of that woman's body to the man who got her pregnant. That is something that any simple minded person could understand. It isn't rocket science. And it isn't up for a debate whether or not a woman's body can be taken over because she is pregnant. The United States Supreme Court decided that 40 years ago. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she may terminate her pregnancy within the timeframe established by the individual state the woman is seeking an abortion in.



There is no test to determine fatherhood in those stages of pregnancy, so of course some man claiming that she is pregnant with his child is making unprovable claims and that doesn't nullify a woman's Consitutional protections or her rights to bodily sovereignty.



Let me guess, you are divorced and paying child support and feel like you got screwed because you are a man. That has nothing to do with a man being able to force a woman to incubate a child that she doesn't want.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 04:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV' timestamp='1308867475' post='338928

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1308866000' post='338926']

Quote:
How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.


I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all. If a man gets to decide that he wants a child and the woman does not, it is the woman who has to incubate a child even if she doesn't want to, if the laws favored a man having a stake in the decision. And that is wrong.



As legal history has shown, the man has never had the upper hand in court decisions in either custody cases or cases where the child has not even been born yet (i.e. a man, nor a court, cannot force a woman to give birth that which was conceived she does not want).



So with all due respect, your point is moot.



TS


I see we've got ourselves another anti-woman character on board. I think you have misunderstood my point, a point that is not moot as it directly refers to your comment, the one that I quoted.



As legal history has shown it is only in recent history that a woman had any legal rights or personhood at all. Now, we have finally come to the point where the Consitution is applied to women as well, and Constitutionally, we women have a right to decide what happens in our own bodies.



A fetus being created by a man and a woman through intercourse does not transfer ownership of that woman's body to the man who got her pregnant. That is something that any simple minded person could understand. It isn't rocket science. And it isn't up for a debate whether or not a woman's body can be taken over because she is pregnant. The United States Supreme Court decided that 40 years ago. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she may terminate her pregnancy within the timeframe established by the individual state the woman is seeking an abortion in.



There is no test to determine fatherhood in those stages of pregnancy, so of course some man claiming that she is pregnant with his child is making unprovable claims and that doesn't nullify a woman's Consitutional protections or her rights to bodily sovereignty.



Let me guess, you are divorced and paying child support and feel like you got screwed because you are a man. That has nothing to do with a man being able to force a woman to incubate a child that she doesn't want.

[/quote]





I am no anti-woman character and you are a BAD JUDGEMENT of character. I am a happily married man of 14 years; and have an education both personally (worldly and locally) and academically that exceeds your own. If I am wrong, the please tell me you have a degrees higher than a Paralegal and Criminology degree, plus 5 years military police experience on more than one continent.



So....feel free to try again with your asinine substantiated suppositions.



TS







gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 04:47 PM   #6
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,407
LOL





WT
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 06:15 PM   #7
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 32,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1308872551' post='338939

[quote name='GWV' timestamp='1308867475' post='338928']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1308866000' post='338926']

Quote:
How’sthat for hypocrisy in this entire debate/issue. Again I digress, as that isanother debate.


I don't believe that it is hypocritical at all. If a man gets to decide that he wants a child and the woman does not, it is the woman who has to incubate a child even if she doesn't want to, if the laws favored a man having a stake in the decision. And that is wrong.



As legal history has shown, the man has never had the upper hand in court decisions in either custody cases or cases where the child has not even been born yet (i.e. a man, nor a court, cannot force a woman to give birth that which was conceived she does not want).



So with all due respect, your point is moot.



TS


I see we've got ourselves another anti-woman character on board. I think you have misunderstood my point, a point that is not moot as it directly refers to your comment, the one that I quoted.



As legal history has shown it is only in recent history that a woman had any legal rights or personhood at all. Now, we have finally come to the point where the Consitution is applied to women as well, and Constitutionally, we women have a right to decide what happens in our own bodies.



A fetus being created by a man and a woman through intercourse does not transfer ownership of that woman's body to the man who got her pregnant. That is something that any simple minded person could understand. It isn't rocket science. And it isn't up for a debate whether or not a woman's body can be taken over because she is pregnant. The United States Supreme Court decided that 40 years ago. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she may terminate her pregnancy within the timeframe established by the individual state the woman is seeking an abortion in.



There is no test to determine fatherhood in those stages of pregnancy, so of course some man claiming that she is pregnant with his child is making unprovable claims and that doesn't nullify a woman's Consitutional protections or her rights to bodily sovereignty.



Let me guess, you are divorced and paying child support and feel like you got screwed because you are a man. That has nothing to do with a man being able to force a woman to incubate a child that she doesn't want.

[/quote]





I am no anti-woman character and you are a BAD JUDGEMENT of character. I am a happily married man of 14 years; and have an education both personally (worldly and locally) and academically that exceeds your own. If I am wrong, the please tell me you have a degrees higher than a Paralegal and Criminology degree, plus 5 years military police experience on more than one continent.



So....feel free to try again with your asinine substantiated suppositions.



TS

[/quote]



Well, you've met WT now. Don't tread on the holy grail of feminism, suggest that men might face gender inequalities, note that young boys today are being feminized, or for God's sake don't ignore the Goddess. If you do, brace yourself for WT noting that we've got ourselves another anti-woman character on board.



WT talks about the "good men" out there. Here's the translation: "Good men" agree with her 100 percent, or nearly so. In WT's "Men Rating System," only two grades are given: An "A" or an "F." Women's rights are a black and white issue. Every shade of grey is, unfortunately, black.



If you haven't figured it out, but I'm sure you have, I am another one of WT's anti-woman characters.
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 07:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Thanks for the heads up "imaginethat" regarding WT.



TS
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 07:56 PM   #9
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,407
Leave it to you to side with the men that have fucked up woman issues, and had bad divorces and more than one or two marriages. Anti-woman is someone who actually thinks that forced motherhood is acceptable. Hey IT, take your gender issues and shove them, eh? There is nothing wrong with fighting to keep women from losing rights that were denied to us for centuries. If that's what you think of someone that places importance on the individual liberties of all citizens, you are not being honest here about who you are. The Holy Grail my ass, stop mischaracterizing me, when you do, you just expose your bitterness and prove my point.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 23rd, 2011, 07:59 PM   #10
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,407
Male Gender Inequality? Seriously?





Whew! That's rich. With the exception of some custody and child support issues, what pray tell, might those be?
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
abortions, billboard, blacks, claiming, controversial, kill

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After Birth Abortions hot dragon Abortion 144 May 5th, 2013 01:32 PM
Lesbians arrested for claiming fake hate crime Wayne Malley Current Events 19 May 21st, 2012 06:38 AM
Tom Udall / Mark Udall Cabal Killed Dadt, Now Scheme To Kill Filibuster To Kill Doma The Revelator Politicians 0 January 5th, 2011 06:19 PM
An Atheist Billboard tadpole256 Atheism 64 August 6th, 2008 04:37 AM
Mercy abortions... OKgrannie Abortion 17 July 15th, 2008 05:45 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.