₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Are you Catholic

How is that important?

GracieX3:
Wow. Are you seeing how much you defend racism, especially from Trump?

Trump spent money on newspaper ads claiming the guilt on a group of innocent coloured men. You do not see that as racist.

And you are now comparing it to Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and injured a third. Opinion was divided whether it was murder or self defence. Keep in mind that it could go both ways because he was defending himself but he carried a gun to an already charged protest. Both sides had their points, so no racism either way.


O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Some blacks cheered because the police department was racist. Had they not been racist, Simpson would have been indicted. The whites who wanted him jailed were in their right.


Two different scenarios to the Trump's action on the central park five is racist because he had no proof but believed that they were guilty. There was no real evidence tying them to the crime.

My guy,
What is your standard? Trump is a racist for accusing black kids. You guys are not racist for accusing a white kid, and whites are not racist for accusing O.J. Simpson. You seem to have no standard, and you are all over the place.

raumdeuter:
Actually accused Kyle Rittenhouse of being a racist white supremacist for shooting 3 white guys

The left arr demented. The create and recreate the meaning of racist Hitler Nazi etc

There is a Democrat senate contestant in Maine who has a Nazi tattoo that the party is supporting while insisting that Trump Romney McCain Bush were all Hitler

They literally saluted a King Charles while protesting about Trump being a king

To be a leftist means to be a bit crazy.

DeepSight:
If you are, I want to hear your view on Trumps attacks on the Pope.


I was only providing context to show you its quite different from the case of the kids. I did not say my view.

Your difference makes no difference. You really have not explained why one should be seen as racism and the other is not. Yes, no two cases are exactly the same, but we must judge with a standard. It seems you have 2 standards, one for Trump and one for your leftist brethren.

DeepSight:
From what is in the public space already, every unbiased person knows Trump has engaged in those degenerate acts.
My problem with you is this knee jerk defense of all things white supremacist, Trumpian and Jewish supremacist.
Just be balanced. I dont think I have heard you criticize a single thing Trump has ever done.

Are you catholic?

Oga, I think you are racist by your standard.

Let's use your favorite Gemini.
Here is the prompt: Have the Epstein files implicated Trump in sexual child abuse so far?

As of May 2026, the various releases of the "Epstein Files" (including documents unsealed by the courts in 2024 and those released by the Department of Justice under the Epstein Files Transparency Act in late 2025 and early 2026) have not provided direct, corroborated evidence or legal proof that Donald Trump engaged in sexual activity with minors.

While the files contain mentions of Trump, the information regarding sexual activity specifically with minors consists of allegations rather than proven facts. Here is the direct breakdown of what the files contain regarding these claims:

1. Unsubstantiated Allegations
The 2026 DOJ release included FBI memos (specifically Form 302s) memorializing interviews from 2019 with an unidentified woman.

The Claim: The woman alleged that in the early 1980s (when she was approximately 13 years old), Jeffrey Epstein flew her to a building in New York or New Jersey where Donald Trump allegedly attempted to sexually assault her.

The Status: The FBI characterized these claims as "unverified" and "unsubstantiated." The Justice Department noted that some files contained "sensationalist" claims, and Trump’s legal team has dismissed the allegations as "completely baseless."[b][/b]

From what you have read above, are you racist? It says the files have not provided direct, corroborated evidence or legal proof that Donald Trump engaged in sexual activity with minors.
Are you a racist?

basilico:
Liberals are the most racist people on earth.
They use racist cards to bulldoze their way. Nominate Ketanji because she is black. Elect Kamala because she is a woman and black.
Jussie Smollett attacked by guys wearing MAGA hats. You are racist if you prefer immigrants from developed ( read white) nations.
Isn't creating a majority minority district like in Louisiana itself racist.
Discriminating against the white race is racism, unless you think it's acceptable because of historical injustices.

Tctrills should respond to the rest.

The left trades on racism. It is their bread and butter, and they are very good at it. Even here on Nairaland, they are the first to cry racism. But we have learnt their Kreptonite, they hate facts and figures.

DeepSight:
I think the Kyle Rittenhouse case is markedly different because of the context of the riots about the police shooting of black a black man. Therefore his actions were seen as attempting to defend a racist police shooting - seven shots which left the victim paralyzed. I am only giving context. Very different scenario.

However, one thing you should know is that I know there are racists on the left too, but just far less and racism is not an ideology they way it is for the right, even if unsaid.

Epstein files are non existent?
You are truly on something.

Are you Catholic. I have a reason for asking which has nothing to do with anything debated in the last few days.

Please what do the Epstein files prove against Trump?

Answer the above because that's the easiest to fact check.

Anyone accusing Trump of molesting minors, should we call such a person a racist?

How about a white man who still believes OJ Simpson is guilty of killing is wife even after the jury found him innocent, is he a racist?

DeepSight:
I think the Kyle Rittenhouse case is markedly different because of the context of the riots about the police shooting of black a black man. Therefore his actions were seen as attempting to defend a racist police shooting - seven shots which left the victim paralyzed. I am only giving context. Very different scenario.

However, one thing you should know is that I know there are racists on the left too, but just far less and racism is not an ideology they way it is for the right, even if unsaid.

Epstein files are non existent?
You are truly on something.

Are you Catholic. I have a reason for asking which has nothing to do with anything debated in the last few days.

To your last paragraph, give me your reason first because O don't see reason for the question.

To your first paragraph, you claim accusing a young man of murder stops being racism if the actions of the innocent man is perceived by his accusers to be racist.

Oga even you must accept that this racism thing is making no sense.

By your logic, if I wrongfully accuse you of being racist as was the case of Kyle, I am not racist but in Trump's case, he is racist.

Can I beg you for a mighty favour. Please explain this to me like I am 10 years old. This one over me, I confess.

Make it simple, show how leftist are not racist in accusing Kyle but Trump is a racist.

Note, Kyle did not even shoot a black man

DeepSight:
You miss the point about the central park five. Many blacks/ latinos have been accused of crime without racism being brought up. It was the way Trump went about it. He took out full page adverts in four newspapers at a cost of 85k USD to demand the death penalty even before anything was proven (only two weeks after the incident) and worse than this, after they were exonerated he never withdrew his stance or apologized for it. After New York City settled a lawsuit with the five men for $41 million in 2014, Trump wrote an op-ed in the Daily News calling the settlement a "disgrace" and a "terrible mistake."

On top of all this, I hope you know those guys were juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16.

Let's break it down: the guys were young, and Trump spent money to push a false narrative against them. The only difference here is that your Leftists did not spend money to push their campaign against Kyle Rittenhouse. Even after he was exonerated, they continued to push the false narrative. And Kyle was really young. So the only thing that made Trump's case different was the money he spent. Is that what makes Trump a racist while you leftist are not?
Note, many on the left are spending campaign dollars accusing Trump of all kinds of things on the non-existent Epstein files. Are they racists?

Also, what about all the whites that continued to insist that O.J. Simpson was guilty even after the jury found him innocent, are they also racist?

DeepSight:
1. Trump has been accused of racism long before politics. Long long before. Ever heard of the Central Park Five? Also he and his father were long accused of discriminating against blacks in housing / real estate projects.

2. Its lousy when people mention black celebrities who Trump has associated with. Celebrity pull is celebrity pull.

This is being lousy. Whenever a white man accuses a black man of a crime, is it racism?
So, when you guys (Black guys) accuse Trump of various crimes, are you being racist?

You guys are making the definition of racism to be some kind of mystery.

Many leftists on this platform accused Kyle Rittenhouse of murder. Would you today call all your leftist friends on this platform racists?

[quote author=DeepSight post=139279106]There is something wrong with you.

1. What is wrong with 19% for 13% of the population who you acknowledge form the poorer demographic? Because in fact if this is a correct percentile then what on Earth are you complaining about? It would actually mean that as the poorer demographic they were still not getting enough comparatively.

When did I say it's wrong to give 19% or even 50% to the blacks? When did I complain? Please calm down and read what I wrote. I only said that money is not the solution. I am not against helping the poor, but I am about doing things that work. Please do not intentionally misrepresent my point.

2. You have acknowledged in another post that blacks get more as a function of poverty and not a function of race, so what are you on about? Again, what are you saying here? Did I ever say blacks should get less? Please stop creating these unnecessary distractions.

3. You still refuse to accept that the Six Trillion figure is not what was "given" to blacks - certainly not in the way you claimed - you claimed it as some sort of compensatory gift. There was no such thing. You simply lack the integrity and soundness of character to admit you goofed.

Prove my maths is wrong, and I will accept it. I am open to corrections, but you have to prove I am wrong. Present your calculations and numbers.
Have I made mathematical mistakes before? Yes. But it is clearly on you to point it out. If you are not able to, you need to accept it and stop complaining.

DeepSight:
If you are referring to Graciex3's comment, it is valid for her to point out that people may not be comfortable giving their children to strangers. That is a very valid concern and an instinctive one too, and I also pointed it out myself in case you missed it.

And if you are referring yo her, what do you mean that "people go marry rubbish these days" We can certainly say that your wife has married rubbish too since you can talk like that so cavalierly.

And abortion is not necessarily killing your child. I dont think it is killing or murder to for example stop a one week pregnancy.

It's a valid point to choose killing over giving up a child. Someone is very comfortable taking another person's life but draws the line when it comes to giving the baby a chance at life.

We can argue about abortion being murder, but we can't argue about the killing part.

I dont kill my children, so you will be wrong to argue that my wife married rubbish.

DeepSight:
Your issue with abortion is rooted in religious doctrine. By the way, are you Catholic?

.

A little distraction from the abortion and poverty argument

https://youtube.com/shorts/-9yex88xao0?si=6XGAVlIYGXM191KN

DeepSight:
Your issue with abortion is rooted in religious doctrine. By the way, are you Catholic?


Has it ever occurred to you that the very term "black on black" is a peculiarity that shows bias? Because no one goes around talking about "white on white" or "latino on latino" that much. It is a usage specifically designed to tell a particular narrative about what is in truth simply higher violence in poorer demographics, which is standard everywhere in the world.

Can you believe that one Nigerian Leftist here on Nairaland was arguing that it is better to kill your unborn than present it for adoption? The evil culture is already here. People go dey marry rubbish these days.

DeepSight:
Have integrity and withdraw the lie that blacks have been dashed six trillion first.

Nope, I showed you the most transparent calculations. If you make the calculations, you will come to the same conclusion. Maths never lies. Maths is not political. It is not good or evil. Try it, it works.

DeepSight:
QUESTION: IS THE CLAIM THAT BLACK AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIX TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS TRUE AND IF SO, WHATS THE TIMELINE, AND WHO GOT THESE FUNDS AND ON WHAT BASIS?

GEMINI: The claim that Black Americans specifically have been "given $6 trillion in entitlement benefits" is a mischaracterization of broader figures frequently cited in debates over U.S. welfare policy. There is no official government record or peer-reviewed study that confirms a $6 trillion figure allocated exclusively to Black Americans.

Instead, the "$6 trillion" figure likely stems from a confusion of several distinct data points related to total national spending, specific asset valuations, or recent federal deficit increases.

1. The Likely Origins of the "$6 Trillion" Figure
The specific number $6 trillion appears in two very different contexts within recent economic discourse, neither of which represents an "entitlement payout" to Black Americans:

Total Black Household Wealth: According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total assets held by Black American households (including real estate, pension entitlements, and savings) reached approximately $6 trillion in 2022 (HBCU Money, 2023). This represents the collective net worth and private savings of the population, not government spending.

Recent Federal Deficit Claims: Economic critics, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the Biden administration's policies added roughly $6 trillion to the national deficit through various spending bills (Ditch, 2023). These funds were allocated across the entire U.S. population for infrastructure, COVID-19 relief, and climate initiatives, rather than being targeted specifically toward one racial group.

2. Historical Context of Welfare Spending
If the claim is intended to refer to "The War on Poverty" (launched in 1964), the numbers are much larger, but also population-wide:

Total Spending: Research by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that the U.S. spent approximately $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs between 1964 and 2014 (Rector, 2014).

Demographic Distribution: While African Americans are disproportionately represented in certain means-tested programs due to higher poverty rates, they have never been the sole or primary recipients of the total expenditure. For example, in most years of the program's history, White Americans have constituted the largest single racial group receiving SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid benefits.

3. Basis and Eligibility
Federal benefits in the United States are not distributed on the basis of race, as that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, funds are distributed based on:

Financial Need: Means-tested programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or Medicaid require recipients to fall below specific income thresholds.

Age and Contribution: "Entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare are based on age and the amount of payroll taxes an individual has paid into the system over their working life.
------------------
cc: GloriousGbola / basilico / Ijebos / cococandy

An update, in another calculation, Gemini gave me
Variable, Amount
Total Means-Tested Spending (1964–2026),~$26.0 Trillion
Estimated Weighted Share for Black Recipients, ~19%
Estimated Cumulative Amount, ~$4.94 Trillion

So even in the most conservative calculations, Blacks have received about 5 trillion dollars. That is 10 times the Nigerian GDP. You gave black America 10 of Nigeria, and they did nothing with it, and I am here hating Tinubu.

basilico:
The $6 Trillion is a figure liberals will never accept.
Gemini is heavily biased and I have evidence of Gemini making up stories to me on a sports discipline that I was seeing updates on flashscore. Many times, not once .

Even using Gemini numbers, you still get above 6 trillion

Gemini

Program, Black Recipients (%),
SNAP (Food Stamps),~25%,
TANF (Cash Assistance),~28%,
Public Housing,~45%,

This again shows that blacks get nothing less than 23% of all welfare

It's simple maths, and maths is never wrong.

DeepSight:
Go and amend your post. Are you Catholic? No one said you need to be Catholic. It's just a question.

Also, no one said poverty justifies violence. It's just a global fact. That shows it's not about black people. It's about poverty.

I dont know why my being catholic is important to this discussion. Please explain why.
Also, from what Obama said, fatherlessness has a much bigger effect on crime than poverty. We both know Obama is always right.
Let me quote the gentleman again.

We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

From Obama's speech, the black problem is more of fatherlessness than poverty.
Fix fatherlessness and
Poverty decreases by 5x
Crime decreases by 5x
Dropouts decrease by 9x
And the prisons are 20x emptier.

Do you doubt these Obama numbers?

DeepSight:
You want to teach me to use AI and yet your question framing was useless.
At all events, the fact remains that there is no race-based distribution. Where blacks get more, its because there are more poor blacks.
THAT SAYS ENOUGH.

I will not bother asking you to retract your lie that blacks have been dashed six trillion in welfare.

Are you saying that the figures I presented are wrong?
I agree with you, Blacks get more because they are poorer, but my point remains that this money has not improved them in any way. It's almost like a waste. Throwing money at a problem almost never solves it. Fix the culture, and you have fixed black America.

Guess what, the blacks were escaping poverty at a much faster rate before the welfare state was created. Please fact-check this.

[quote author=DeepSight post=139278198]Your issue with abortion is rooted in religious doctrine. By the way, are you Catholic?
You mean I need to be a Catholic or religious to be against the killing of unborns? Explain why? My abortion issue is more rooted in science. That's why I have not brought up religion the entire time. You are the one bringing it up.


Has it ever occurred to you that the very term "black on black" is a peculiarity that shows bias? Because no one goes around talking about "white on white" or "latino on latino" that much. It is a usage specifically designed to tell a particular narrative about what is in truth simply higher violence in poorer demographics, which is standard everywhere in the world.

Wrong again. Actually, some statistics show white-on-white murder rates, and also for Hispanics. The data is not exclusively for blacks. I am more interested in blacks because I am a black.

The idea that if you are poor, you should commit crimes is rubbish. This eliminates looking at the culture. I have been to some of the poorest counties in Africa, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and even Burundi. These very poor places are all safer than Nigeria. Crime is a choice. And when the culture permits it, it gets worse.
For example, in Nigeria, we have accepted the culture of internet fraud. These boys are celebrated, so more people get attracted to this nonsense.

Also, the lack of fathers in the home contributes more to crime than poverty. Below are the words of your great Obama.

"And when fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibilities to their children, we know the damage that that does to our families. ... Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to drop out of school and wind up in prison. They're more likely to have substance abuse problems, run away from home, and become teenage parents themselves."

We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

Hope you know that Obama is never wrong.

Again, about the black culture of fatherlessness, he said,

"But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."

So please argue with Obama, do not argue with me.

DeepSight:
QUESTION: IS THE CLAIM THAT BLACK AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIX TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS TRUE AND IF SO, WHATS THE TIMELINE, AND WHO GOT THESE FUNDS AND ON WHAT BASIS?

GEMINI: The claim that Black Americans specifically have been "given $6 trillion in entitlement benefits" is a mischaracterization of broader figures frequently cited in debates over U.S. welfare policy. There is no official government record or peer-reviewed study that confirms a $6 trillion figure allocated exclusively to Black Americans.

Instead, the "$6 trillion" figure likely stems from a confusion of several distinct data points related to total national spending, specific asset valuations, or recent federal deficit increases.

1. The Likely Origins of the "$6 Trillion" Figure
The specific number $6 trillion appears in two very different contexts within recent economic discourse, neither of which represents an "entitlement payout" to Black Americans:

Total Black Household Wealth: According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total assets held by Black American households (including real estate, pension entitlements, and savings) reached approximately $6 trillion in 2022 (HBCU Money, 2023). This represents the collective net worth and private savings of the population, not government spending.

Recent Federal Deficit Claims: Economic critics, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the Biden administration's policies added roughly $6 trillion to the national deficit through various spending bills (Ditch, 2023). These funds were allocated across the entire U.S. population for infrastructure, COVID-19 relief, and climate initiatives, rather than being targeted specifically toward one racial group.

2. Historical Context of Welfare Spending
If the claim is intended to refer to "The War on Poverty" (launched in 1964), the numbers are much larger, but also population-wide:

Total Spending: Research by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that the U.S. spent approximately $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs between 1964 and 2014 (Rector, 2014).

Demographic Distribution: While African Americans are disproportionately represented in certain means-tested programs due to higher poverty rates, they have never been the sole or primary recipients of the total expenditure. For example, in most years of the program's history, White Americans have constituted the largest single racial group receiving SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid benefits.

3. Basis and Eligibility
Federal benefits in the United States are not distributed on the basis of race, as that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, funds are distributed based on:

Financial Need: Means-tested programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or Medicaid require recipients to fall below specific income thresholds.

Age and Contribution: "Entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare are based on age and the amount of payroll taxes an individual has paid into the system over their working life.
------------------
cc: GloriousGbola / basilico / Ijebos / cococandy

My brother, when you use AI, learn to conduct deep research. Dont worry, I will do it for you.

Since the launch of the "War on Poverty" in 1964, the US has spent over $26 trillion on anti-poverty programs, with total expenditures potentially reaching higher depending on whether state-level contributions and specific program definitions (such as medical vs. cash aid) are included. Current federal spending alone exceeds $1 trillion annually.

Now, on total entitlement benefits, the US has spent $193 trillion

Now the question is, what percentage has gone to the blacks? This is where we apply AI.

[url]Grok[/url]

Around 23-26% of recipients (and a similar share of spending) in major US means-tested welfare programs go to Black Americans, who make up roughly 13-14% of the total US population.
Key Data (Recent Years, e.g., ~2019–2023)

Combined safety net programs (Urban Institute analysis of ~59 million recipients): Non-Hispanic White ~43%, Hispanic ~26%, Black ~23%.
SNAP (food stamps): White ~35-42% (non-Hispanic White lower, around 35-37%), Black ~25-28%, Hispanic ~16%. Blacks are overrepresented relative to population share.
Older or multi-program data (e.g., SNAP + TANF + housing) sometimes shows higher Black shares for specific overlapping benefits, but the broad pattern holds: Whites are the largest group by raw numbers, Blacks are disproportionately represented.

Spending (dollars) tracks recipient shares closely because benefits are allocated per eligible person or household (with adjustments for household size, income, etc.). There is no comprehensive official breakdown showing a dramatically different spending percentage. Black households are overrepresented among recipients due to higher participation rates in programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF, driven by factors such as higher poverty rates, single-parent households, and urban concentration.

ChatGPT

There isn’t a single percentage for “all U.S. welfare” going to any one group, because “welfare” isn’t one program—it includes things like food assistance (SNAP), healthcare (Medicaid), and cash aid (TANF), and each has different data.

Breaking it down (to understand it properly)
1) Food assistance (SNAP)
Black recipients: about 26–27%
White recipients: larger share overall
2) Cash welfare (TANF)
Black recipients: about 27–28%
3) Healthcare (Medicaid)
Black recipients: about 23%

This completely corresponds with Grok. Blacks get more than 23% of all welfare.


Gemini

Program, Black Recipients (%),
SNAP (Food Stamps),~25%,
TANF (Cash Assistance),~28%,
Public Housing,~45%,

This again shows that blacks get nothing less than 23% of all welfare


Now, let's use the lowest figure, 23%. Calculate 23% of 26 trillion

The result is 5.98 trillion

This represents the lowest possible amount blacks get from welfare.
I am usually not wrong with the stats and figures

GracieX3:
Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

I have answered you above but here is some interesting stats.
~48–52% of all black women in the US have killed there unborn.
That half the black women in the US have the mind to take human life. This is a wasted generation.
Do you wonder why they have the worst families.
Do you wonder why black society is a mess?
A society that kills its own even before birth.
I hope you are not surprised to find out that black on black murder in the US is by far the highest.
From birth, these people have learnt that it is ok to kill your own.

GracieX3:
Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

The foster care system is not perfect, the adoption system is not perfect, even growing up with your biological parents is never perfect but to think that killing the child is the solution, how does that make sense?

Actually, I know from firsthand experience of kids that grew up outside their biological parents and it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Any woman contemplating killing her seed is not equipped to be a mother given up that child is s much better option.

Now, hope you know that foster care is different from adoption?
I am advocating for adoption not foster care.
The US has more than enough parents waiting, hoping and praying to make these kids theirs.

You seem to think adoption is worse that abortion

basilico:
I didn't know about that.
In some African countries you can't do that. Mother's who drop their children at their deadbeat father's work places have been charged in court.

This is for the US

GracieX3:
And dumping the child to a stranger who will not likely love them as a parent is better? F4cking up the child for life is better huh?

My dear, this is your most anyhow argument.
You mean a mother should kill her baby because she is afraid to give it to strangers.
So to you, killing is the better option?
Again who told you that adopted kids are not loved? Where did you get that from?
In are society today, we are very comfortable handling our kids to strangers. We all use nannies, we take our kids to school and hand them over to complete strangers in the name of education.
But when it comes to given the child a chance to life, you bring up this stranger excuse.
This is the worse point you have made today.

Would you kill someone or hand him over to a stranger who is better equipped to take care of him.

I don't even see your argument here.

GracieX3:
Nonsense

Have you heard of Safe Haven Laws in the US?
Once you hand your baby to a staff member at a designated location (hospital, fire station, or police station), your legal responsibility ends immediately.

So you are not forced to care for the child if you don't want to.
The excuse that the mother is left without option is false.

Let's face the fact, mothers who kill their babies are murderous and wicked. Simple.

99% of them have no good reason to do so.

GracieX3:
Stop engaging in lies. Go and check how orphanages are underfunded. Go and see how expensive it is to raise young children in the USA. Go and see how messed up the foster care system is.

Do you know how many serial killers come from messed up parents who should have aborted them?

Let's go by the facts. Please fact check anything I say say below.

Estimates suggest there are roughly 1 to 2 million couples waiting to adopt in the United States at any given time.

This shows that their are 30 to 1. That's 30 parents to one child.

Please fact check.

Again you seem to be suggesting that to reduce serial killers, we should abort every child from messed up homes.

That's licence to kill 75% of black kids. It doesn't and shouldn't make sense.

Your life should not be taken away just because your parents are messed up.

You should be taken from them and given to better parents but your life should be spared.

Let's not kill people because of the sins of their parents

GracieX3:
Black people in Nigeria are Conservative.

There are Black Conservatives in the USA as well.

What you can measure is that Black people in USA vote democrat. Democratic party.

Democrat is not the same as progressive.

Many Black people in the USA vote democrats mainly because there is racism in the Republican party, and the Republican party does not like diversity

Lol
Recently, the republican party was celebrating 16% approval in the black community.
You are completely wrong about racism in the republican party but let's assume you are correct so we don't change topic. Blacks have been given 90% of their votes to the Dems since 1960s. A community doing this for over 60 years, that's called culture.

So no matter the excuse we can say that blacks in the US have a very liberal culture that is killing their unborns at a rate never seen in history

basilico:
Now that we are on abortion , Out of that $6 Trillion exclude planned Parenthood portion . 🙂🙂

Do you mean planned abortions because that name planned parenthood is a trick.

GracieX3:
No.....I am not arguing the problem of evil as it relates to a religious defence against abortion.

The main defence for abortion is that a woman should have choice within the first trimester. Abortion is the last option.

This is why sex education and also counselling are important but your Conservatives are fond of defending such programs as it relates to mental health or sex education.

If a woman cannot take care of a child that she will give birth to in 9 months time, she has options-

1. Give the child to parents or siblings when born.
2. Give the child to an orphanage when born
3. Abort the pregnancy.

Guess which party has not helped with both options 1 and 2 by rejecting policies threat will give benefits that will help those raising young children?

Let me start with your last points. Let's even say the republican party is against options 1 and 2, but I can clearly tell you that as of today, those 2 options are fully available to every woman in the US.
You don't need the help or legislation of government to find parents to adopt your baby. The waiting list is so long that there is always someone to adopt your children.

Now you said you support women to have a choice to kill their unborns in early pregnancy. Please explain why. And at what stage of the pregnancy should this killing be stopped?

GracieX3:
A low income woman is a low income person whether in a rich or poor state.

The difference is that in a rich state, she has access to abortion.

This argument is looking one kind. But let's move on
Can you state a few specific reasons why a poor woman in the US will want to kill her unborn but a rich person would not?

Please educate me on this