Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[sneakypete]

So I can't determine the course of a woman's life.  OK, fine.

And by the same token, and by precisely the same argument, she should not be able to kill her unborn child.  After all, should not the unborn child be entitled to determine the course of her life?

In effect, you are designating the unborn child as chattel, and as such eligible to be killed. 

Either that, or you've dehumanized the unborn child.

@r9etb @Jazzhead

Excellent counterpoint!

[sneakypete]

This is great to discuss these issues here; it was maybe a distraction under politics.

@TomSea

And rare for this subject matter,it has been mostly civilized discussion. That's almost unheard of when it comes to discussing abortion.

[sneakypete]

Besides, if a 'fetus' is non viable, the mother will miscarry and nature takes it's course with no intervention by third parties needed.

@Norm Lenhart

Eventually,but by the time it happens the woman's life,health,and reproductive future may already be at risk. MUCH better to insure it happens at the earliest possible moment than to have it happen that late.

[sneakypete]

Simply because you can't be OK with leaving laws on the books to murder children without being accepting that they are 'fine'.

@Norm Lenhart

Fine. Show me ONE law that specifically states it's alright to murder children.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Norm Lenhart

Fine. Show me ONE law that specifically states it's alright to murder children.

Semantics. Abortion murders children. Pick ANY law making it legal in any state and you have your answer.

Again. People like Scott Peterson have been tried and convicted/sent to jail for murder because they ended the life of a child in the womb. Now people cannot have their cake and eat it too. There is one end result to abortion. A dead child. There is Z E R O difference if a pissed off nutcase did it or a mother and 'health' workers in a clinic do it because said female got drunk one night and slept with the local union hall. This is intentionally ending a human life.

[INVAR]

And you have every right to believe and promote that. You do NOT have the right to demand your religious viewpoint be made into law,though. We are not Muslims.

Was I suggesting such demands?  Jazzhead seems to think so.

He thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort the consequence of unprotected sex and forcing her to have a baby she does not want. In the context of the news on this thread, he's apparently all aflutter that our tax dollars are no longer going to pay for aborting infants in other countries. I guess we are violating the Constitutional rights of those women by forcing them to have a baby too, since you and I are no longer paying for it.

We are a nation of laws,not religious demands.

A fun discussion to have at another time on another thread might be where the moral laws that uphold a civil society came from.

A fetus has no rights because it is not a citizen,or even a child.

It is either a life or it is not a life.  When a civil society is no longer moored by values that once were championed by it's population and life is cheap and arbitrarily decided and redefined - it is not long before that society determines which lives are considered viable, and which lives are considered a nuisance, a burden on society or a threat.

We are either a culture of life and the sanctity of life in the pursuit of happiness - or we become just another culture of death that deems itself civilized.
[/quote]

[TomSea]

I'm not sure if I am reading as to all whom said what; but if one made the law no abortions after 90 days, first trimester, I guess that would be similar to the law in France, 12 weeks, which comes down to 84 days.

Ted Cruz and ? sponsored a bill (as there are in various states) to try to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks, so that is still 140 days but that would still cut down on abortions.  And for the US, that 20 week limit is actually progressive versus abortion on demand (it gets complex but generally, this would be good).

The National Review article posted here today says that even if Roe V Wade were overturned, all that would happen is it would go back to the States, each state could legislate it as they see fit, which I might be able to go along with in the short run.

[TomSea]

I agree we should try to end all abortion, a pragmatic view to me though, is it's a battle to be won with baby steps, one at a time. So don't get me wrong on this.

[Norm Lenhart]

I agree we should try to end all abortion, a pragmatic view to me though, is it's a battle to be won with baby steps, one at a time. So don't get me wrong on this.

No need for baby steps. A poll upthread showed over 60% of the country did not favor abortion. Thats far more than people who just elected a president. So that president could ask Congress to send him a constitutional amendment, the majority congress could pass it and over half the country and majority GOP governorships has their back.

Simple, no delay, and no BS for liberals to litigate or propagandize. 100% constitutional. Majorities should govern as majorities.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

You were doing just fine until you added the "and must remain so" part. WHY must it remain so? Nobody died and made the woman God,and she doesn't have absolute say one way or the other unless she got pregnant by herself,or with donated anonymous sperm. Even then  she does NOT have a "right" to call a "oopsie!" and end what she herself started if she waits until after the fetus becomes a viable life. Once that happens,it's Game OVER,period. The only exception would be in genuine cases of the mother's actual life (NOT her lifestyle!) being at actual risk if the baby is carries to term. Actions and decisions DO have consequences.

I agree with what you're saying, sneakypete.  Posit a reasonable legal definition of viability,  and enforce it.   No questions asked before viability,  all kinds of questions asked thereafter.    Well,  that's simplistic.   But I can buy your idea of a sign-off by the father on a legal abortion,  although you know it would be a bear to make that into law.   Can't say I know why, but women don't like the idea of a dad forcing them to be brood mares, even with the option  of giving the baby up for adoption.   You'd want a veto, wouldn't you, over a spouse being able to get a court order to make you undergo a medical procedure?

[TomSea]

Overturn Roe v. Wade, then it goes back to the states, that's all. Not that bad.

Afterall, the SCOTUS has upheld abortion law by states limiting abortion.

I remember, during the debates, Trump made those remarks about "punishing women getting an abortion", no one else could get away with saying that but Teflon Don. So, he might end up doing well in this area.

[Hoodat]

Your basis?  What is the legal foundation of that assertion?

Ok,now you are going to jump from the moral and the practical,to the legal?

I have exclusively argued the legal since the very beginning of this thread.  Scroll back to page 1 and check out post 19.

I see no point in arguing the moral and practical when our right to implement it has been stripped from us by the tyranny of the courts.

State law varies by state,but here is a factoid for you to ponder,he was an accomplice/investor. Without him the pregnancy wouldn't have happened,so he has a right to have an equal say in the results of his action as long as the life of the mother is not at risk. There is also an emotional aspect involved.

My point here is that States have the right to regulate and enforce the man's obligation - a right granted by the Constitution.  Yet the State's right to regulate and enforce has been arbitrarily denied by a decision of the court with absolutely positively zero legal foundation.

I argued early on that under the circumstances, the man should also be granted the right to choose.  He should be able to choose whether he wants to pay child support or not.  That would be equal.

[Hoodat]

[Jazzhead] thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort  .  .  .

.  .  .  without ever citing where in the Constitution that right can be found.

[Hoodat]

I agree with what you're saying, sneakypete.  Posit a reasonable legal definition of viability

And who do you recommend should be given the power to do that?

[sneakypete]

Semantics. Abortion murders children. Pick ANY law making it legal in any state and you have your answer.

@Norm Lenhart

WRONG! Words  have meanings,and murder is a crime and has always been a crime.

Abortion is legal,even for pricks like you that think life begins at erection.

Again. People like Scott Peterson have been tried and convicted/sent to jail for murder because they ended the life of a child in the womb.

Give us the details,bubba!

 

[sneakypete]

It (a fetus) is either a life or it is not a life.

It's not a life. It is a POTENTIAL life.

 

When a civil society is no longer moored by values that once were championed by it's population and life is cheap and arbitrarily decided and redefined - it is not long before that society determines which lives are considered viable, and which lives are considered a nuisance, a burden on society or a threat.

Yeah,bring back the "good old days" when people that defied the local witchdoctor/priest by denying the Holy Spook existed could be boiled in oil. Yup,those were sure-enough the good old days,huh?

 

[sneakypete]

No need for baby steps. A poll upthread showed over 60% of the country did not favor abortion. Thats far more than people who just elected a president. So that president could ask Congress to send him a constitutional amendment, the majority congress could pass it and over half the country and majority GOP governorships has their back.

Simple, no delay, and no BS for liberals to litigate or propagandize. 100% constitutional. Majorities should govern as majorities.

@Norm Lenhart

So,if someone produced a poll that said 60 percent of Americans though that Trump should be hanged and Hillary Clinton put in the WH as our new Maximum Leader,you would think that would be just peachy-keen,too?

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

But I can buy your idea of a sign-off by the father on a legal abortion,  although you know it would be a bear to make that into law.   Can't say I know why, but women don't like the idea of a dad forcing them to be brood mares, even with the option  of giving the baby up for adoption.

Comes under the "Tough Titty" category. Unless the pregnancy was a result of rape,it was THEIR idea to have sex with the man,so they,like all the rest of us,have to live with the results of their own decisions. They have no more right to unilaterally decide to have an abortion despite the wishes of the man than the man has the right to demand they get an abortion if he doesn't want a baby. He should have though of that possibility before he decided to engage in a little slap and tickle with her.  Once the woman is pregnant,there IS no "me",only "we". If one partner decides they want the baby,they get the baby.

 

You'd want a veto, wouldn't you, over a spouse being able to get a court order to make you undergo a medical procedure?

Removing an ingrown toenail is a medical procedure. An abortion performed on a viable fetus or baby is several solar systems removed from that.

Let me ask you and everyone else this because I really don't know. Can one parent give consent to any serious elective  surgical procedure being performed on a minor child without the consent of the other parent?

[INVAR]

It's not a life. It is a POTENTIAL life.

So I guess what it all comes down to in todays accepted societal norms, is that people who WANT a baby - (the little creature growing inside the mother) is a life, and if it is not wanted - then it it not a life.

Should be simple enough then to argue that my MIL is not a life then, and Euthanasia is the way to go.

Yeah,bring back the "good old days" when people that defied the local witchdoctor/priest by denying the Holy Spook existed could be boiled in oil. Yup,those were sure-enough the good old days,huh?

My history is not too fuzzy - and I do not recall anytime in American history where such practices were argued to be Constitutional Rights or a boiled-in-oil industry was sanctioned by society and government.

Mayhaps in Salem, MA in the 1600's perchance, but I think they must have ran out of oil because they had to use rope on twenty of them over a year's time.

Today - we efficiently eradicate that many infants every ten minutes in this country.

Progress.

[Jazzhead]

Comes under the "Tough Titty" category. Unless the pregnancy was a result of rape,it was THEIR idea to have sex with the man,so they,like all the rest of us,have to live with the results of their own decisions. They have no more right to unilaterally decide to have an abortion despite the wishes of the man than the man has the right to demand they get an abortion if he doesn't want a baby. He should have though of that possibility before he decided to engage in a little slap and tickle with her.  Once the woman is pregnant,there IS no "me",only "we". If one partner decides they want the baby,they get the baby.   

Sounds reasonable in a perfect world,  but reality bites.  If a man is going to go to court to get an order requiring a woman to carry a fetus to term,   their relationship is on the rocks.    Politically, the notion of women being ordered to be brood mares for men they no longer have a relationship with is a non-starter.   That's why I say that, during the period the fetus is non-viable,  it's got to be the woman's call alone.   She has to have that reasonable chance to decide whether to go forward with a pregnancy.   

It would be great if such a decision could be made mutually by both parties to the pregnancy,  but in the context of crafting a legal rule that works in the real world of busted relationships,  it is unworkable to limit a woman's autonomy.   

 

  Removing an ingrown toenail is a medical procedure. An abortion performed on a viable fetus or baby is several solar systems removed from that.

Let me ask you and everyone else this because I really don't know. Can one parent give consent to any serious elective  surgical procedure being performed on a minor child without the consent of the other parent?

I chose an imperfect metaphor because a man can't become pregnant.  But I can guarantee that the men here wouldn't tolerate a state's imposition on their autonomy comparable to that which they insist women be subjected to -  nine months of pain and misery followed by hospitalization for a condition that, even in modern times, carries serious risk of deadly complications. 

Regarding surgery on a minor child,  I don't know the answer to your question.   My guess is that the consent of only one parent is required.   But the relationship of former sexual partners is not one of parent and child.   Would you tolerate a legal regime that allowed your spouse (or, more to the point, former spouse) to force you to undergo a serious surgical procedure?   

[Jazzhead]

Was I suggesting such demands?  Jazzhead seems to think so.

He thinks that opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb is violating a woman's Constitutional right to abort the consequence of unprotected sex and forcing her to have a baby she does not want. In the context of the news on this thread, he's apparently all aflutter that our tax dollars are no longer going to pay for aborting infants in other countries. I guess we are violating the Constitutional rights of those women by forcing them to have a baby too, since you and I are no longer paying for it.

It seems either my writing or your reading comprehension is lacking.   I have no objection to you or anyone else "opposing the industrial elimination of infants in the womb".    Like you,  I oppose abortion.  Unlike you,  I am willing to do something about it that works in the real world.   Moral persuasion can be a powerful thing -  hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers will soon arrive in Washington for their annual rally.   More power to such outpourings of feeling on behalf of the unborn.  And yes,  many pro-lifers back their words with action, working in crisis pregnancy centers and providing support to women who've been abandoned by family and partner.   

On the left,  the movement to require insurance policies to provide contraception for free has, whatever else you may think about it,  undoubtedly helped reduce the number of abortions.   Abortions don't happen in good relationships, abortions don't happen when a child is planned.   

Where the pro-life movement does the unborn a disservice is its insistence on fighting an unwinnable political war.   I know you can't stand Roe v. Wade, think it was wrongly decided and represents a usurpation of states' rights,  and has no foundation in the Constitution.  But the reality is that it is the law of the land, and it is firmly grounded in the Constitution according the highest court in the land.   Folks have asked me what the Constitutional foundation of Roe is, and the answer is really very simple:  Marbury v. Madison.

That reality has existed for over 40 years now.   It has existed for every woman of child-bearing age alive today.   Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned.  The time to do that was back in the seventies, when a Constitutional amendment could have been brought.   The pro-life movement lacked the courage or will to do so,  and ever since has been relying on the puncher's chance of electing a President who will appoint justices to "turn back the clock".   It can't and shouldn't happen.   The legal principle is stare decisis.  An conservative jurist will respect that principle, and realize that the court lacks the power to re-define the rights of half the population in such a fundamental way.   That power is reserved to the people, and that ship has sailed.   

So get real,  and stop pretending that agitation to ban abortion is doing the unborn any good.   Call a truce in the political war for the sake of the unborn, and let's all work together to persuade, support and otherwise act to make abortion obsolete.   

[txradioguy]

So has the Constitutional justification for murdering an unborn baby been found yet?  Or are we still dancing around that subject?

[Jazzhead]

So has the Constitutional justification for murdering an unborn baby been found yet?  Or are we still dancing around that subject?

Read my post above - Marbury v. Madison.   

[txradioguy]

Read my post above - Marbury v. Madison.

Seriously?  No I honestly mean that...you're going to use that case to try and defend abortion?

Do you actually know what Madison was about?  Or did you just pick that talking point up from a PP website?

[Jazzhead]

Seriously?  No I honestly mean that...you're going to use that case to try and defend abortion?

Do you actually know what Madison was about?  Or did you just pick that talking point up from a PP website?

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.   

[Wingnut]

Anyone have anything new to say on the subject besides restating their same old posts in different words over and over?

Anyone have a change of heart because of someones post?

Have you convinced anyone "you are right"  and they are wrong?

Do we all have the strength to carry on our mighty task in this thread; or are we just jerking off?


Carry on then.   

[txradioguy]

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.   

It has the power to INTERPRET...not create rights out of whole cloth.  Which is exactly what the courts did when they decided on Roe.  They CREATED not interpreted how the Constitution was written.

There is no wall of privacy.  That was created in Griswald unconstitutionally expanded in Roe.


There's no more wall of privacy in the U.S. than there is a wall of separation between Church and State.

Neither exist in the Constitution. 


Your ability to interpret the Constitution...in a word...sucks.  This isn't the first time you've falsely used the Constitution to justify your Liberal positions on issues.

And sadly I'm afraid it won't be the last.

Liberals have a tendency to see things in the Constitution that don't exist.

[Jazzhead]

You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy.  Probably why two wives left you.   

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.   I recognize that reality and that it's not going to change because women aren't going to tolerate the loss of their liberty. 

Now it's more complicated than that, I realize -  the state can and will, even under Roe,  regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along.  But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination.   Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth.   I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".   

[Bigun]

Marbury v. Madison was the seminal case that confirms that the SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constitution.   That authority was exercised in the early seventies by the twin decisions in Griswold and Roe v. Wade.   The former is the key case establishing the Constitutional right to privacy,  from which the right to self-determination found in Roe is derived.   These are both natural rights, by the way - God-given, if you will.   

Like it or not, Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the law of the land.  A woman's right to self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, like it or not.   Be an armchair lawyer all you want, and spout that the decision was wrong, blah blah blah.  Your opinion is like your arsehole  - you've got one and so does everybody else.   

Good God!!! 

[txradioguy]

You are incapable of engaging in a civil dialogue, txradioguy.  Probably why two wives left you.

Ad hominem...the last refuge of people with no intelligent leg to stand on.   

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.

The SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to create law out of whole cloth.  You are falsely claiming that it does.

Now it's more complicated than that, I realize -  the state can and will, even under Roe,  regulate and even ban abortion once the pregnancy is far enough along.  But every woman must have a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a pregnancy to term.   That's part and parcel of her most precious natural rights of privacy and self-determination.   

And what about the natural rights of the baby?  Hmmm when do those come into play? 

And again this is a question you've never answered...why do you absolve the women of ANY responsibility for getting pregnant...place it all on the man...yet do the exact polar opposite when it comes to killing the baby?

I am sick of turds like yourself that want "rights for me but not for thee".

I'm not the turd denying the "natural rights" of a baby before it ever gets the chance to succeed in life.

You're the one supporting imposition of Imperial...Federal unconstitutional mandates onto states that don't want them and shouldn't have to accept them if they don't want to.

Of course, you're not a woman and will never have to bear the pain and burden of pregnancy and childbirth. 

And neither are you.  So WTF exactly gives you the right to pontificate on and pass judgment on people that detest your willful and wanton support and defense of murder?

By your own words you have no right to weigh in on this subject either.

[MOD3]

@Jazzhead.

Stop with the personal insults.
If you cannot be civil don't post.
No further warnings will be given.

[Hoodat]

This has nothing to do with me "sucking" at interpreting the Constitution.   The SCOTUS has the authority to do so, and its decision guarantees that the state cannot force a woman to be an incubator against her will.

Ah, so it didn't come from the Constitution after all, but was the dictate of the Supreme Court.  Glad we finally got that cleared up.

So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.

[TomSea]

One would not have Supreme Court judges themselves saying certain issues, abortion and so on are not in the Constitution.

[chae]

@txradioguy

It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong. 

[TomSea]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

--------

Supreme Court Judges write themselves, some decisions are NOT to be found in the Constitution, that is what that one judge said in the dissent I posted yesterday.

One poster has been harping over and over, in the Constitution, well, it's in the Constitution for states to legislate against abortion as well. This poster's arguments are not that strong.

[truth_seeker]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

--------

Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

[r9etb]

Respectfully, when someone speaks, it sounds like he is from one of the Eastern Abortion Havens, NJ, NY have astronomic abortion rates and what sends them so high is the black abortion rate; so if this sounds like something to champion, blacks 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white child, that's sad.

And of course, all of those abortions are wrong but it is a real problem in the black community.

Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born. 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/


Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.

[TomSea]

Hideously true. In NYC, more black babies are aborted than born. 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/


Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell.

Sometimes, when these things are being defended; one needs to talk about reality and what is being defended. One often sees an abortion march or those who promoted abortion prior to 1973; but whom suffers from it the most are minorities. 

Clearly all abortions are wrong; but that always sticks out at me.

Most Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities and so on. When, however one wants to label the pro-choice argument is brought up; I think this is a proper response.

[r9etb]

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."

It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance.  The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations.  The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence;  not the race of the families involved.  The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.

There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.

[Jazzhead]

So now we're back to you siding with tyranny - the Constitution be damned.

I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.   

How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination?   The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority.  Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce,  thank God and thank the Constitution.   

[Bigun]

I'd modify that just a bit to, "Fatherless culture is violent..."

It's not the fact that they're black, except by happenstance.  The real issue is an inner-city culture that has been functionally without fathers and intact families for generations.  The dysfunction is due to the collapse of the two-parent family, and the lack of fathers' influence;  not the race of the families involved.  The presence of an involved father is crucial for both girls and boys.

There's a tremendous amount of research on this, with agreement across the political spectrum.

And where does that fatherless culture come from? 

[Jazzhead]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

Hard to say,  but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.   

[TomSea]

I'm siding with personal liberty - and the Constitution is with me.   

How can it be "tyranny" to favor personal liberty and self-determination?   The tyranny I oppose is the tyranny of the majority.  Religious zealots have no right to force a woman to reproduce,  thank God and thank the Constitution.

Once again, Jazzhead calls the Founding Fathers "religious zealots", they drew up the Constitution; and a good case can be made they drew it up with Christian values in mind.

JH basically repeats himself.

I am not for the genocide of black youth.

The Constitution also has shown that States have a right to legislate against abortion as their are a number of states where their right to persuade against abortion is upheld. That is Constitutional; hence, states like Missouri and others have only one clinic in the whole state where abortion is available.

[txradioguy]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

LBJ and the Great Society.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

It's funny that JH tells you that you don't get an opinion because you're a man, and then tells at least 3 women here that their opinion is wrong.

@chae yeah I noticed that too.

Ironic isn't it?

[TomSea]

LBJ and the Great Society.

That's right, those kinds of programs are blamed.

[Mod2]

Changing the subject somewhat, "According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites,.."

Black culture is violent, and life means little.  They skew statistics very much when ever they are present in significant numbers.

We'd prefer that posters stay on topic.

[Wingnut]

LBJ and the Great Society.

Rarely can you pinpoint an exact point in time when one action  started it all rolling down hill...

But that SOB Johnson is the exception to the rule.

Liberals will never admit it though.

[r9etb]

And where does that fatherless culture come from?

I hope you're not suggesting that it's an intrinsic "black thing."

You can see the same dynamic at work in any demographic - black, white, Hispanic, American Indian. 

The collapse of marriage and the two-parent family is the primary discriminator for poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, educational achievement, and various other social ills -- all of which feed back on the next generation and make the problem worse and more concentrated.  (Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart deals with it quite rather well.)

I think the fact that it's concentrated among blacks in the inner city has its roots in their particularly difficult history, and a culture that was already vulnerable.  The combination of poverty and the unintended consequences of the Welfare State would have taken hold there first.

[Bigun]

Hard to say,  but one factor may be the prevalence of social welfare programs that provide the means for a single mother to tell an abusive partner to skedaddle.

Didn't exist prior to 1964!