• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do you blame for the problems of African Americans?? [W:98]

Who is MOST to blame for the problems of African Americans?

  • GOP

    Votes: 5 5.1%

  • Black Leadership

    Votes: 22 22.4%

  • Democrats

    Votes: 15 15.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 56 57.1%
  • Total voters
    98
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bodhisattva said:
But with birth control they can forget or choose to not use it... forced sterilization is permanent and secure.
Click to expand...
The permanent part is the issue I have with it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
But with birth control they can forget or choose to not use it... forced sterilization is permanent and secure.
Click to expand...

Forced sterilization is also about the most totalitarian thing a government can do. I vote for supplying poor people with birth control. I still like democracy.
 
The Mark said:
The permanent part is the issue I have with it.
Click to expand...

I am gonna get it done to me and I see no problem with it but understand why others might...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Forced sterilization is also about the most totalitarian thing a government can do. I vote for supplying poor people with birth control. I still like democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't care in this case. When the people are having to shell out billions to take care of idiots that should never be having kids in the first place we should do something about it. We do when parents are bad parents, we take their kids. There is a precedent for this. Do you support Child Services taking a child from a supposedly abusive home? If so then prohibiting conception in the first place is a good idea.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am gonna get it done to me and I see no problem with it but understand why others might...
Click to expand...
I have no issue with it if people voluntarily have it done.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I don't care in this case. When the people are having to shell out billions to take care of idiots that should never be having kids in the first place we should do something about it. We do when parents are bad parents, we take their kids. There is a precedent for this. Do you support Child Services taking a child from a supposedly abusive home? If so then prohibiting conception in the first place is a good idea.
Click to expand...

The whole point is prohibiting contraception is never a good idea. Going to extremes is well......just that----extreme.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The whole point is prohibiting contraception is never a good idea. Going to extremes is well......just that----extreme.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it a good idea. I respect that you disagree... but I only see your opinion. I think forced contraception has real world value to it... actual money savings... lives valued... etc.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why isn't it a good idea. I respect that you disagree... but I only see your opinion. I think forced contraception has real world value to it... actual money savings... lives valued... etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a pragmatic solution. Does the government force sterilization on someone who gets pregnant that does not make a certain income? Really???? Why not just provide birth control to poor people? Neither situation is perfect but only one is pragmatic. There is no such thing as perfect. There is such thing as reasonable solutions.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I don't think it's a pragmatic solution. Does the government force sterilization on someone who gets pregnant that does not make a certain income? Really???? Why not just provide birth control to poor people? Neither situation is perfect but only one is pragmatic. There is no such thing as perfect. There is such thing as reasonable solutions.
Click to expand...

Reasonable? Fine... I will stop channelling my ex-wife's living spirit for a while and agree with you. She will be back and so will the unreasonable responses... get ready.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Lol, okay.
Click to expand...

To me, DP is a game to either confuse people or make them laugh... I have lots of personalities here. You seem nice so I will let you in on that. :)
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The whole point is prohibiting contraception is never a good idea. Going to extremes is well......just that----extreme.
Click to expand...

Who exactly is prohibiting contraception?
 
RedAkston said:
Who exactly is prohibiting contraception?
Click to expand...

See posts 585-

Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."

Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

On a lighter note, don't miss The Greatest Hits in Contraceptive History slideshow. Or this particular throwback birth-control method.
"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

The first sign of the new assault came last October, when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal "persons." If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senate back bills that would do just that.


That's not all. Earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star who's considered a possible pick for the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nomination, introduced a bill that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason. In other words, if your boss doesn't want to cover birth control in the company health plan because he says it would offend his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have to—even if his Cialis was still covered. Rubio's bill could also allow states to refuse to provide birth control through Medicaid, which provides family planning services to millions of poor women.

“These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further.”
The Republican presidential candidates also have come out against birth control. Mitt Romney has slammed President Barack Obama for requiring most employers to offer insurance that provides birth control at no cost to women who want it, even though Romney himself maintained a similar rule as governor of Massachusetts.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the non-binding Missouri primary as well as the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on Tuesday, has also slammed Obama's decision. But he's also gone farther than that, suggesting that any form of birth control is immoral. "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned. The Republican War on Contraception | Mother Jones
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
See posts 585-

Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."

Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

On a lighter note, don't miss The Greatest Hits in Contraceptive History slideshow. Or this particular throwback birth-control method.
"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

The first sign of the new assault came last October, when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal "persons." If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senate back bills that would do just that.


That's not all. Earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star who's considered a possible pick for the 2012 GOP vice-presidential nomination, introduced a bill that could cut off birth control access for millions of women by allowing even non-religious employers to refuse birth control coverage as long as they cite a religious reason. In other words, if your boss doesn't want to cover birth control in the company health plan because he says it would offend his religious beliefs, he wouldn't have to—even if his Cialis was still covered. Rubio's bill could also allow states to refuse to provide birth control through Medicaid, which provides family planning services to millions of poor women.

“These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further.”
The Republican presidential candidates also have come out against birth control. Mitt Romney has slammed President Barack Obama for requiring most employers to offer insurance that provides birth control at no cost to women who want it, even though Romney himself maintained a similar rule as governor of Massachusetts.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the non-binding Missouri primary as well as the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on Tuesday, has also slammed Obama's decision. But he's also gone farther than that, suggesting that any form of birth control is immoral. "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned. The Republican War on Contraception | Mother Jones
Click to expand...

So you have one - Rick Santorum who opposes all forms of birth control on religious grounds. And since Santorum is not in Congress, by my count that makes zero.

And once again, Mother Jones, really?
 
Cardinal said:
faithful_servant said:
Lots of white people have been taken slaves over the course of history. Look at the Vikings as just one example. I doubt that they ever had a slave who wasn't white. Why is it that you can only equate slavery with blacks?? An honest historical perspective shows that they were far from the only people made slaves, yet that's where your mind automatically jumps. Are you just completely ignorant of any history outside of American history? Do you think that blacks are supposed to be slaves?? Or maybe (here's by far the most likely scenario) you are too lazy to think outside of the parameter set forth by your political orientation??
Click to expand...
People have been taken as slaves for different reasons throughout history. Your thinking is indeed strangely binary.
Click to expand...
Actually; all races have been both slaves and slavers at some point in history_

So; if the world history of slavery were taken into account, all races would be accountable_

Oddly enough; only one race has been singled out as slaves and one race as slavers_

The determining factor for this judgement call was far-left 20th Century politics which unfortunately continues in the 21st_

It's a progressive strategy initiated for the purpose of creating a class of "victims" to secure their votes and political loyalty_

In the eyes of Black America; they are unique victims of slavery and White America is unique to being slave masters_

The fact that there has been no slavery in the United States for seven generations is inconsequential to those benefiting from the myth and probably will remain so as long as they continue getting mileage from it_
 
Empirica said:
Actually; all races have been both slaves and slavers at some point in history_

So; if the world history of slavery were taken into account, all races would be accountable_
Click to expand...

Given enough time nearly every enslaved (or at least culturally obliterated) race is going to bounce back, depending I would say on the brutality of their treatment. Romans took people defeated in conquest as slaves, yet in time slaves could legally be freed and citizens in their own right, and of course they could simply buy their freedom. As their culture, language, race and Gods weren't really the issue (just that they weren't as handy with a catapult or on the battlefield) their enslavement wasn't felt so greatly down the generations. Other times it was less kind, such as the Jewish diaspora. Although Jews held their own with their reverence of education and professionally integrating into every country they moved to, it was because of the Diaspora that they were a frequently preyed upon people for the next two thousand years. What saved them in the end? I would say that as vicious as the Romans' vengeance on the Jews was, to my knowledge they didn't actually ban their God, names or language (the diaspora probably did a number on the integrity of their family structure for a while, though...I'm not sure). But it's been two millenia since the Diaspora, and seeing the long, slow climb back up that African Americans are making today it's clear that a 150 years since the end of slavery isn't long enough for the dust to settle. It's really not often in history that when a people are taken into slavery literally everything is stripped from them.

As has been said earlier in the thread, different situations are different.
 
Last edited:
RedAkston said:
So you have one - Rick Santorum who opposes all forms of birth control on religious grounds. And since Santorum is not in Congress, by my count that makes zero.

And once again, Mother Jones, really?
Click to expand...

The point is these jack arses are helping to push such legislation through Congress.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The point is these jack arses are helping to push such legislation through Congress.
Click to expand...

You've proven no such thing. What bill has been proposed that would restrict birth control (or contraception if you will) in any way other than it being mandated in the ACA? Who are the sponsors of those bills?
 
Cardinal said:
Given enough time nearly every enslaved (or at least culturally obliterated) race is going to bounce back, depending I would say on the brutality of their treatment. Romans took people defeated in conquest as slaves, yet in time slaves could legally be freed and citizens in their own right, and of course they could simply buy their freedom. As their culture, language, race and Gods weren't really the issue (just that they weren't as handy with a catapult or on the battlefield) their enslavement wasn't felt so greatly down the generations. Other times it was less kind, such as the Jewish diaspora. Although Jews held their own with their reverence of education and professionally integrating into every country they moved to, it was because of the Diaspora that they were a frequently preyed upon people for the next two thousand years. What saved them in the end? I would say that as vicious as the Romans' vengeance on the Jews was, to my knowledge they didn't actually ban their God, names or language (the diaspora probably did a number on the integrity of their family structure for a while, though...I'm not sure). But it's been two millenia since the Diaspora, and seeing the long, slow climb back up that African Americans are making today it's clear that a 150 years since the end of slavery isn't long enough for the dust to settle. It's really not often in history that when a people are taken into slavery literally everything is stripped from them.

As has been said earlier in the thread, different situations are different.
Click to expand...
Did you take into account the sacrifice and self-deprecation of white Americans to help black American's "climb back up"; despite the fact that 145 years ago when slavery was legal; very few of their ancestors ever even owned a slave?

Is there any other people in the history of the world who are so hated and blamed for something they are so obviously innocent of yet sacrificed so much to undo the damage to victims whose only link to slavery is six generations removed?
 
RedAkston said:
You misspelled "Pro Choice". And "personhood" laws do not block access to birth control.
Click to expand...

I misspelled nothing, and personhood laws do block access to contraceptives. In addition, there are some on the right who have tried to limit access to birth control (ex Plan B)
 
Empirica said:
Did you take into account the sacrifice and self-deprecation of white Americans to help black American's "climb back up"; despite the fact that 145 years ago when slavery was legal; very few of their ancestors ever even owned a slave?

Is there any other people in the history of the world who are so hated and blamed for something they are so obviously innocent of yet sacrificed so much to undo the damage to victims whose only link to slavery is six generations removed?
Click to expand...

That doesn't address the my post. Whatever white Americans may or may not have done to contribute to the "climb back up" doesn't negate the long term ramifications that cultural and familial obliteration may have. Your good intentions may not be enough in the face of that, at least not for the timetable you're looking for. Your belief that 150 years is long enough is arbitrarily chosen, and my position is so far proven true in that it's not enough, as evidenced by how black Americans and Native Americans are faring. However, I could be wrong. If you can point to a similar situation where an entire race's homeland, culture, names, religion, language and family structure were all equally obliterated have bounced back in 150 years (or a similar time frame) I'd be more than happy to take that example into consideration. Otherwise, what you're historically looking at is either examples where they took many hundreds of years to recover, or they bounced back but only after suffering a few catastrophes that did not wholly threaten their way of life (or existence).
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I misspelled nothing, and personhood laws do block access to contraceptives. In addition, there are some on the right who have tried to limit access to birth control (ex Plan B)
Click to expand...

Plan B is the killing of the fetus. That isn't birth control, it's the killing of a living yet unborn human being. Unless you consider abortion "birth control" at which point we are done conversing on the subject. There is a forum for blasting that nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom