Millions of black babies have been aborted in my lifetime, been the Democrats pushing for abortion, why do blacks on this board hate Republicans?

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
1,960
Points
195


This is one of the reasons why the black population is only around 15% and will always be a minority, thus keeping White Democrats in power, who follow their ancestors footsteps of the Democrats of the South.






Republicans have been wanting to allow babies their chance in this world, because we just dont know which one, could of invented "warp speed", or the cure for cancer, but we will never know.



Now the argument of the progressives(recessives) is that if those black babies are allowed to be born, then they will starve, because Republicans dont want to take care of other people's children. My answer to that argument is the Progs "think" that black people are too stupid to take care of their own children, and if that isnt racist to the core, i dont know what is? Are black people too stupid to take care of their own children?

Would like to hear from the blacks who frequent this board and get their opinion on the progs?

No one is forcing Black women to have abortions.

Maybe Black men who father these children but don't support them should share in the blame.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,942
Reaction score
13,079
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...
This is where you get confused, buddy.

Back in the 1970's, you had abortion laws on the books that were routinely and largely ignored by women and their doctors, to the point where they were meaningless. Police didn't investigate, prosecutors didn't bring charges, juries didn't convict.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
14,199
Reaction score
3,624
Points
290
Very misleading thread. It is the pregnant woman who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the woman's race. Moreover, Democrats don't push anyone to have an abortion. The only thing the Democratic Party "pushes" for is for government/politicians to stay out of this private matter so that the proper decisionmaker, the woman, makes the final decision on her own terms. She is the only one qualified to make the decision, not some lame-brained politician.
If the Progs werent pushing for abortions, why do they run on the policy for women to abort, even after the birth? Seems that if you didnt want someone to abort a baby, you would be out there saying how bad it is, not that it should be free, and other people who work have to pay for it. Got that? Again, though you arent answering the question about why black women are told to kill their babies in the millions, thus having their population decimated(the Southern White Democrats of the South couldnt be any prouder) when the blacks should be having more babies, just so their voices would be a lot louder at election time.....
There is no such policy. Do you know what the word "policy" means? I never said anything about wanting or not wanting someone to abort a pregnancy or not abort a pregnancy. I wrote only as to who is the proper, qualified decisionmaker, and it is not government or politicians. You must be really stupid if you haven't heard of the Hyde Amendment and all of the restrictive regulations that have come out of HHS as it plays politics with our money.

There is no "question' as to black women being told by anyone whether or not to continue with a pregnancy or not, so there is nothing to answer.

I haven't heard of anyone telling black women to have an abortion or forcing them to go to women's clinics. Where did you hear this? There is so much misinformation about birth control and abortion being circulated deliberately to trick people that I do not pay much attention to these stories unless they come from a reputable source like the AMA or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Do you know if a civil-rights organization like the NAACP or the National Organization for Women has weighed in on this?
it is a politicians game to PLAY IT, Lysie. Sometimes
it includes GERRYMANDERING type politics. The who
should pay thing. The possible loss of welfare for
the NEXT ONE thing. Every detail is meat for politics,
MOST OF ALL----the genocide libel
If I understand what you are saying, this is why I don't think that there is any role for government/politicians to play here. Ideological/philosophical/theological/sectarian conclusions must be left up to the individual.
And paid for by the individual.
Not any more than anything else is. BTW: How much are we each paying to make up for the stupidly granted tax exemptions for religious faiths that are really just political parties?
You got a point there...
Every Synagogue, Church and Mosque in Nassau County owns all the politicians.
The County and Town hands out Permits like toilet paper.
It's amazing how much pull that religious organizations have. I grew up in North Jersey's Bergen County and my grandparents lived in Nassau, beginning in around 1920, so I know. The Catholic Church in my town, in the 60s, didn't like the fact that there was a "head shop" across the street from it, which it did not own. The RC people screamed about it until it was forced to close. No drugs were sold in the shop, just posters, beads, peace symbols, tie-dyed T-shirts, etc. This refusal to MYOB was one of the things that soured me on the RCs. It's fine for people to worship as they choose, but it isn't fine to bully everybody else into submission, and the politicians let them do it, or perhaps accept fat checks to do their bidding.

I'm surprised that mosques are in on the deal, considering how many people go screaming to the zoning board about parking problems and noise when they hear that one is going to be built.

So you really don't like the idea of churches tacking social issues, and think they should confine their prayers inside their 4 walls?

What I think you are failing to realize is that here in America we have Freedom of Religion, not merely a freedom to worship, and speaking out against slavery, or drugs or numerous other social ills is part of this freedom. The Religious Left in Chicago has protested in front of gun stores and billboard companies that advertise cigarettes and malt liquor in the ghetto. Should they be minding their own business too, or are libs exempt?
It's one thing to state your view on something, to protest, but another to abuse the law to impose it on other people. Government has to remain neutral on these issues. You are denying the fact that Americans hold a variety of beliefs and reject other ones. If somebody's religion says something about women or LGBTs, for instance, can women of other faiths, and LGBTs of other faiths, as well as the non-religious, protest this religion and picket and protest at these people's churches, businesses, or homes? This is also speaking out on social ills.

It is unfair to use the legal system to attack others based on one's faith when a faith cannot be outlawed in this country no matter what it teaches. The situation is too one-sided and it allows the government to side with one group against another group and gives one side an out and allows it to escape liability for its actions. For instance, a blanket government rule or regulation that allows a ban on LGBTs adopting children, based on an allegation by some "religious" organization that LGBTs are pedophiles, is discriminatory and provides a legal shield for those making this accusation from any liability for making a false accusation. Our values as Americans require neutral rules. IF an adoptive parent seems to be molesting the child that s/he has adopted, the adult who suspects this should report it to the police. If an investigation shows this to be true, the parent will be subject to criminal liability. If a false accusation has been made, the victim of it has to have legal recourse against the accuser for defamation, to which the unjustly accused is entitled.

What you are failing to realize is that freedom of religion applies to all people, even if your particular faith has some objection to these people or something they are doing, because they are free to choose beliefs other than yours. You are also failing to realize that Americans have other rights that are entitled to the same protection as the right to freedom of religion, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of association, and equal protection of the laws and due process.
Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...
When has abortion, guns, anything been put up for a popular vote:? How did abortion become illegal prior to the 70s? Was there a vote on this issue?
 
OP
andaronjim

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
22,618
Reaction score
7,617
Points
360
Location
Floor E Da
Very misleading thread. It is the pregnant woman who makes the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the woman's race. Moreover, Democrats don't push anyone to have an abortion. The only thing the Democratic Party "pushes" for is for government/politicians to stay out of this private matter so that the proper decisionmaker, the woman, makes the final decision on her own terms. She is the only one qualified to make the decision, not some lame-brained politician.
If the Progs werent pushing for abortions, why do they run on the policy for women to abort, even after the birth? Seems that if you didnt want someone to abort a baby, you would be out there saying how bad it is, not that it should be free, and other people who work have to pay for it. Got that? Again, though you arent answering the question about why black women are told to kill their babies in the millions, thus having their population decimated(the Southern White Democrats of the South couldnt be any prouder) when the blacks should be having more babies, just so their voices would be a lot louder at election time.....
There is no such policy. Do you know what the word "policy" means? I never said anything about wanting or not wanting someone to abort a pregnancy or not abort a pregnancy. I wrote only as to who is the proper, qualified decisionmaker, and it is not government or politicians. You must be really stupid if you haven't heard of the Hyde Amendment and all of the restrictive regulations that have come out of HHS as it plays politics with our money.

There is no "question' as to black women being told by anyone whether or not to continue with a pregnancy or not, so there is nothing to answer.

I haven't heard of anyone telling black women to have an abortion or forcing them to go to women's clinics. Where did you hear this? There is so much misinformation about birth control and abortion being circulated deliberately to trick people that I do not pay much attention to these stories unless they come from a reputable source like the AMA or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Do you know if a civil-rights organization like the NAACP or the National Organization for Women has weighed in on this?
it is a politicians game to PLAY IT, Lysie. Sometimes
it includes GERRYMANDERING type politics. The who
should pay thing. The possible loss of welfare for
the NEXT ONE thing. Every detail is meat for politics,
MOST OF ALL----the genocide libel
If I understand what you are saying, this is why I don't think that there is any role for government/politicians to play here. Ideological/philosophical/theological/sectarian conclusions must be left up to the individual.
And paid for by the individual.
Not any more than anything else is. BTW: How much are we each paying to make up for the stupidly granted tax exemptions for religious faiths that are really just political parties?
You got a point there...
Every Synagogue, Church and Mosque in Nassau County owns all the politicians.
The County and Town hands out Permits like toilet paper.
It's amazing how much pull that religious organizations have. I grew up in North Jersey's Bergen County and my grandparents lived in Nassau, beginning in around 1920, so I know. The Catholic Church in my town, in the 60s, didn't like the fact that there was a "head shop" across the street from it, which it did not own. The RC people screamed about it until it was forced to close. No drugs were sold in the shop, just posters, beads, peace symbols, tie-dyed T-shirts, etc. This refusal to MYOB was one of the things that soured me on the RCs. It's fine for people to worship as they choose, but it isn't fine to bully everybody else into submission, and the politicians let them do it, or perhaps accept fat checks to do their bidding.

I'm surprised that mosques are in on the deal, considering how many people go screaming to the zoning board about parking problems and noise when they hear that one is going to be built.

So you really don't like the idea of churches tacking social issues, and think they should confine their prayers inside their 4 walls?

What I think you are failing to realize is that here in America we have Freedom of Religion, not merely a freedom to worship, and speaking out against slavery, or drugs or numerous other social ills is part of this freedom. The Religious Left in Chicago has protested in front of gun stores and billboard companies that advertise cigarettes and malt liquor in the ghetto. Should they be minding their own business too, or are libs exempt?
It's one thing to state your view on something, to protest, but another to abuse the law to impose it on other people. Government has to remain neutral on these issues. You are denying the fact that Americans hold a variety of beliefs and reject other ones. If somebody's religion says something about women or LGBTs, for instance, can women of other faiths, and LGBTs of other faiths, as well as the non-religious, protest this religion and picket and protest at these people's churches, businesses, or homes? This is also speaking out on social ills.

It is unfair to use the legal system to attack others based on one's faith when a faith cannot be outlawed in this country no matter what it teaches. The situation is too one-sided and it allows the government to side with one group against another group and gives one side an out and allows it to escape liability for its actions. For instance, a blanket government rule or regulation that allows a ban on LGBTs adopting children, based on an allegation by some "religious" organization that LGBTs are pedophiles, is discriminatory and provides a legal shield for those making this accusation from any liability for making a false accusation. Our values as Americans require neutral rules. IF an adoptive parent seems to be molesting the child that s/he has adopted, the adult who suspects this should report it to the police. If an investigation shows this to be true, the parent will be subject to criminal liability. If a false accusation has been made, the victim of it has to have legal recourse against the accuser for defamation, to which the unjustly accused is entitled.

What you are failing to realize is that freedom of religion applies to all people, even if your particular faith has some objection to these people or something they are doing, because they are free to choose beliefs other than yours. You are also failing to realize that Americans have other rights that are entitled to the same protection as the right to freedom of religion, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of association, and equal protection of the laws and due process.
Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...
When has abortion, guns, anything been put up for a popular vote:? How did abortion become illegal prior to the 70s? Was there a vote on this issue?
Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
207
Points
140
" Balking At Anti-Federalism Drones Promoting Statistism To Over Ride Individual Liberty "

* No Panic Just Annoyed By Neophytes Lacking Understanding For Limits Of State Interest *

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...
Duh , this is a republic and not a direct democracy , and all the 9 men in black robes did in 1973 was to enforce the constitution about abortion .

That civics in the us fails to distinguish between negative liberties as protections versus positive liberties as endowments while mindlessly bantering for equal wrights is pathetic .
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,942
Reaction score
13,079
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.
Actually, most of the pre-1973 Abortion laws dated back to the 19th century, they were never 'voted" on by the people. And women certainly weren't asked THEIR opinion on the matter.

Here's the part you guys always get wrong about Roe. Roe didn't end protections for fetuses. Abortions were performed regularly by doctors, who ignored the laws with impunity and were never prosecuted for doing so.

They abolished laws that were dead letter. No one really thought it was a complex issue, just like they hadn't 8 years earlier when they abolished all the contraception laws under Griswald v. CT. The Evangelicals didn't care about the issue, they thought it was a "Catholic Thing" and the Catholics treated it about as seriously as eating meat during Lent.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,536
Reaction score
6,845
Points
1,815
Yes, there was a vote by the populace and it didnt look good for the progs. So they took it to the courts.
Actually, most of the pre-1973 Abortion laws dated back to the 19th century, they were never 'voted" on by the people. And women certainly weren't asked THEIR opinion on the matter.

Here's the part you guys always get wrong about Roe. Roe didn't end protections for fetuses. Abortions were performed regularly by doctors, who ignored the laws with impunity and were never prosecuted for doing so.

They abolished laws that were dead letter. No one really thought it was a complex issue, just like they hadn't 8 years earlier when they abolished all the contraception laws under Griswald v. CT. The Evangelicals didn't care about the issue, they thought it was a "Catholic Thing" and the Catholics treated it about as seriously as eating meat during Lent.
you are delirious. Abortion was DANGEROUS because it was illegal
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,942
Reaction score
13,079
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
you are delirious. Abortion was DANGEROUS because it was illegal
Um, no, it really wasn't by 1973.

In 1972, the last year before Roe, 36 women died from Abortion complications in states where abortion was illegal. That might sound bad, but that same year, 22 women died from complications in states where abortion was legal.

Now, abortion was dangerous in the 1940's, when all these chicks who fucked the milkman while their hubbies were off fighting WWII got them from back alley providers.

But by 1972, OB/GYN's were ignoring the laws, and no one was bothering to enforce them at that point.
 
OP
andaronjim

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
22,618
Reaction score
7,617
Points
360
Location
Floor E Da
" Balking At Anti-Federalism Drones Promoting Statistism To Over Ride Individual Liberty "

* No Panic Just Annoyed By Neophytes Lacking Understanding For Limits Of State Interest *

Back in the 1970s abortion was illegal, but 9 men in black robes overturned democracy by voting that abortion was a right for a woman. I thought you guys were all for democracy. Now that the tables could be turned and those 9 men in black robes could put the voting back to the people, you suddenly have an anxiety attack...
Duh , this is a republic and not a direct democracy , and all the 9 men in black robes did in 1973 was to enforce the constitution about abortion .

That civics in the us fails to distinguish between negative liberties as protections versus positive liberties as endowments while mindlessly bantering for equal wrights is pathetic .
Where in the constitution does it say a women has the right to kill her baby? Please show US where it is....
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,434
Reaction score
207
Points
140
" Mindless Question Indicative Of Delusion "

* Rhetorical Nonsense *

Where in the constitution does it say a women has the right to kill her baby? Please show US where it is....
Duh , a baby has been born and having been born it has met the requisite for state interest and constitutional protections ; thus , the constitution does not say it is okay to kill a baby .

Do you have a more succinct question demonstrating actual validity ?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top