Mike Pence for President.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 397
#31
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Alec
It is not selfless, I would call it more selfish to impose your thoughts on to other people.... think of them as murderers and hate them for it when you have no idea about the circumstances that made them make the decision.... I can tell by the way you say it "commit abortion."


I don't believe in speeding... but I am not going to go lay in the street to try to stop people from speeding, or march against speeders unless it is right outside my house where my kids play.....  That is when it affects me. 

 
Here is a better analogy.
If I believe the speed limit is too fast in front of my house, I may go argue that they lower it, but I'm not going to someone else's neighborhood to argue that point.  It does not affect me or my family.

Your analogy is not very good, you are talking about something that is legal and comparing it to something that is illegal, but I tried my best to respond.  

On another note, how do you make the response blue like you did so I can respond to a particular question or retort for better organization?
#32
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Alec
I support him.
OMG a Trumpanzee who supports another Trumpanzee{ Pence } and both support,

1} grabbing women by the _____y without their consent,

2} sticking their friggin nose *v* into a pregnants womans body business with her consent{ virtual? rape? },

3} religous zealous extremists that suppport Biblical Apocalyspe as the final solution.

Lets see, all of three of these appear to me, to based ob some 14th century, or earlier, immoral mind-set towards women.

 

#33
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Then what separates murdering someone and eating their body any different from doing the same to corn?  One is cannibalism, another is part of someone's dinner.
I said a right to be born Once born they have rights you seem to keep comparing apples to turnips.
Why do their rights only start at birth? What is the unborn?

Is it a human being?

If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?

If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.

If one kind of human being, say the unborn, is deemed less valuable than another, then can we discriminate against other classes of human beings, say white males? 


Currently they don't because of Roe v Wade.  Neither did black people when they were slaves.  Black people and fetuses both deserve protected rights under the law.
They don't for the same reason the dead don't. Again you compare the living to the non living. 

Are you saying the fetus is not living? What are you saying?


I hate God because of something he said about hell and I still want abortion to be banned.  Your argument here is stereotypical.
If you hate god you believe he exists. Then you are worse then a Christian they at least have an excuse to hate others having rights. 

Also, you act as if abortion will be bane in every state.  California will keep it legal.  Connecticut will keep it legal.  New York will keep it legal.  It would only be the right wing states that would ban it.  It would become a states issue instead of pro choice states forcing their views on pro life states.
I work in a poor state. Banning it here would force some women to give birth who don't want to. Fuck the state when it's wrong. 

I think it is fairly easy to establish that the unborn is a human being medically and scientifically. Why should a woman be able to kill another human being unless her life is threatened by it (i.e., tubal pregnancy)?

If you are going to kill one class of human beings (the unborn) because they are inconvenient, then why not another class (say people over sixty in poor health or because they live with their children who do not want the burden of looking after them)?


 


#34
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@DBlaze

It is not selfless, I would call it more selfish to impose your thoughts on to other people.... think of them as murderers and hate them for it when you have no idea about the circumstances that made them make the decision.... I can tell by the way you say it "commit abortion."
If something is wrong should we not stand up for justice? What about the murder of over 1.5 billion unborn since Roe v Wade? 




I don't believe in speeding... but I am not going to go lay in the street to try to stop people from speeding, or march against speeders unless it is right outside my house where my kids play.....  That is when it affects me. 

 
Here is a better analogy.
If I believe the speed limit is too fast in front of my house, I may go argue that they lower it, but I'm not going to someone else's neighborhood to argue that point.  It does not affect me or my family.
So, you turn a blind eye to abortion because it does not affect your family?


Your analogy is not very good, you are talking about something that is legal and comparing it to something that is illegal, but I tried my best to respond.  
Not everything that is legal is good or right. 


On another note, how do you make the response blue like you did so I can respond to a particular question or retort for better organization?


#35
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Why do their rights only start at birth? What is the unborn? 

Is it a human being?

If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?

If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.

If one kind of human being, say the unborn, is deemed less valuable than another, then can we discriminate against other classes of human beings, say white males? 


I don't think you are this stupid. Yes the unborn are less valuable then the living as the living are more valuable than the dead. Rights are the foundation of the United States and freedom. 

Are you saying the fetus is not living? What are you saying?
A fetus is unborn and living in the sense grandma on life support is. We are allowed to turn off grandma, a living person, aka the pregnant lady can't shut off her own life support which is her body? 

I think it is fairly easy to establish that the unborn is a human being medically and scientifically. Why should a woman be able to kill another human being unless her life is threatened by it (i.e., tubal pregnancy)?
Again we can shut off grandma, a women should be able to reclaim her own body. 


#36
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@mustardness
I support him.

OMG a Trumpanzee
who supports another Trumpanzee{ Pence } and both support,
At least they have common sense policies such as a border barrier. These Dem's in office are dumb as stumps. 

Your country has the problems it does because of poor management before Trump. Trump inherited a 20 trillion dollar debt load. IMO, it may never recover if Dem's win out in this ideological battle (kiss it goodbye) going on now. Freedom of speech if you are conservative is already being denied on many college and university campuses. The news outlets are all liberal leftist. The spew forth propaganda every hour of every day. Anyone supporting Trump is shouted down not because the ideas of the left are better but because of hatred - yes, hatred. These leftists don't have many common sense ideas, IMO. Their idea of foreign policies is assinine. Their pro-choice position is assinine. Their policies on illegal immigrants are assinine. Their health-care for all will bankrupt your country because it will take from the rich causing much less job creation, plus the cost is astronomical for healthcare for all. You will be paying for it too. There is not one shining example of a socialist State, IMO. Big government does not work well in the sense that it controls your life in so many ways that are not good. If you want to see what big government does then look at China, look at Russia, look at North Korea, look at Cuba, look at Venezuela, look at Zimbabwe, look at Zambia, look at Iran. 


1} grabbing women by the _____y without their consent,

2} sticking their friggin nose *v* into a pregnants womans body business with her consent{ virtual? rape? },
Morally speaking, abortion should be against the law except when the woman's life is threatened. Anything can be legislated by those in power but that does not necessarily make it right, just legal. 

You do not have the right to kill another human being, except in self-defense or during a time of war. Why should women, on their whim?


3} religous zealous extremists that suppport Biblical Apocalyspe as the final solution.

Lets see, all of three of these appear to me, to based ob some 14th century, or earlier, immoral mind-set towards women.


#37
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
gramma doesn't have something injected into her heart to stop it, in other words letting someone die, nature taking it's course, isn't the same as killing something/someone.
life support is an intervention to prevent death, removing it puts the person back in the position they were in before the intervention
abortion in this context is the planned and willful killing of fetus/baby/nonperson however you wish to define it.

but I think that is all in another thread.

I really don't have any strong feelings on the subject but it's an interesting conundrum.
#38
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can't kill someone who isn't born. They have no life yet. Their right to life is less than grandma. But grandma can be left to die.
#39
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not suggesting "someone" is being killed, but rather the act of abortion is killing, whether you consider it a bunch of cells or non person, the act does kill in that sense.  I was just drawing a distinction is all.  If a woman is having a miscarriage sometimes there are things they can to do prevent it, but she can refuse and let nature take its course, which is the same as gramma fmpov.  Hope that makes sense.
#40
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Every single one of those abortions, there was a reason for.  Would you rather some unfit person have the baby, refuse to give it up for adoption, do their best to take care of it, just to find out that they couldn't and the kid is ruined for the rest of his/her life?

That has been my experience with the renters I have had in the past.  That is also the experience with a friend of mine who had 4 kids, couldn't support them, Dad had to sell drugs on top of his pretty good salary, then got caught up in them and went to jail... Mom is now in now in jail because she went crazy and Grandad who just retired is caring for them, but is complaining that he can't enjoy his retirement.... The kids are suffering, they lost mom and dad.... They are not happy kids, and will probably end up just like their parents.

But the main reason, is I don't believe someone should have to change their whole lives because they were making love.  Is having sex deserving of a life sentence?  Parents have to drop out of school to support the new family, when they could have waited until they actually graduated, got a job, had the means to take care of the kid, then brought the kid up correctly.  

If we all dealt with the problems that only we were having, society would be grand.... instead you are standing up for something that no one is forcing you to do.  No one is yelling at you, no one is saying you are evil for what you believe, but you are calling good people murderers, and it is pretty darn mean.  If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't... your belief is still with you.  Let god do the judging and stop the marching, its not going to do a lick of good.

Roe v Wade will not be overturned.... ever!  It just makes too much sense.   Just deal with it.
#41
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If you view killing as a moral act then yes. If you view it as killing in the sense of a person has a right to life then no. 
#42
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@DBlaze
So after the first she kept having kids? Why didn't she get an abortion it's is legal? Sounds like most of the people I work with. Lazy and stupid.  
#43
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Alec
I am glad you're at least not a homophobic bigot... lol

That said, I agree that there is absolutely no reason to ban assault weapons, one type of which is an AK 47.  They are among the best weapons ever designed or manufactured.  If engineering is art, the AK is a masterpiece.      
#44
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Because she is pro-life.
#45
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Sex addict, bipolar, and pro-life is not a good combo.

#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@DBlaze
Every single one of those abortions, there was a reason for.  Would you rather some unfit person have the baby, refuse to give it up for adoption, do their best to take care of it, just to find out that they couldn't and the kid is ruined for the rest of his/her life?
Unfit, in what way? What percentage kill the unborn for financial reasons or because they don't want a baby. Now put yourself in this position. Would you like it if someone decided to kill you because of financial reasons or they just did not want you? 


That has been my experience with the renters I have had in the past.  That is also the experience with a friend of mine who had 4 kids, couldn't support them, Dad had to sell drugs on top of his pretty good salary, then got caught up in them and went to jail... Mom is now in now in jail because she went crazy and Grandad who just retired is caring for them, but is complaining that he can't enjoy his retirement.... The kids are suffering, they lost mom and dad.... They are not happy kids, and will probably end up just like their parents.
So, if you don't like a human being your solution is to kill them, at least in the case of the unborn. But again, put yourself in this position. Would you like it if someone decided to kill you because you were a financial drain?

If the father could not afford to support two or three kids he should have taken precautions to prevent another one from coming into the world, like birth control protection. Even if that failed what right does that give him or anyone else to kill the unwanted human being - because the government says
you can do this?


But the main reason, is I don't believe someone should have to change their whole lives because they were making love.  Is having sex deserving of a life sentence?  Parents have to drop out of school to support the new family, when they could have waited until they actually graduated, got a job, had the means to take care of the kid, then brought the kid up correctly. 
Okay, you are using an appeal to pity. I can do that too. 

So, you justify killing someone (the unborn) because it is inconvenient? But as soon as you are put in the position of someone wanting to kill you then would you still feel it justified?


If we all dealt with the problems that only we were having, society would be grand.... instead you are standing up for something that no one is forcing you to do.  No one is yelling at you, no one is saying you are evil for what you believe, but you are calling good people murderers, and it is pretty darn mean.  If you don't want to have an abortion, then don't... your belief is still with you.  Let god do the judging and stop the marching, its not going to do a lick of good.
Actually, I was citing what is happening in your country in your institutions of higher learning where free speech is squashed if the person is conservative. It also happens on news shows where you get three or four liberals shouting down one conservative. I no longer watch the Communist News Network (CNN) because of their EXTREME bias. 

"If you don't want to have an abortion then don't..." but what about those who do? If no one stands for the rights of the unborn there is a danger that other rights may be diminished also. If not all human beings are intrinsically valuable then what is wrong with Hitler killing Jews, or Stalin starving millions of his countrymen or putting them in the gulag, or Mao's cultural purge? 


Roe v Wade will not be overturned.... ever!  It just makes too much sense.   Just deal with it.


It makes no sense at all. Why can one human being (granting you give the unborn the status of human being and if you don't we need another discussion to precede this one) be dehumanized, discriminated against, and destroyed yet not another? Make sense of it for me.
#47
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Free speech is one thing, and I agree with you on the liberal attitudes and shutting down conservatives at universities and whatnot.

But.... 

You want me to put myself in a fetus' position?  Not knowing anything that is going on.... Funny, you should have said shoes instead of position, I would have said they can't even wear shoes because they are inside the mother being sustained by the mother biologically.  It doesn't have a choice of life, it doesn't have a choice of death either.  Maybe it never wanted to be born.....

You might as well call masturbation murdering.  Is sperm not alive?  Where does the murder actually begin? 

Conservatives are not usually protesters, except when it comes to the pro-life aspect, which I do not agree with because they are invading others privacy.  They do like to speak at venues and share their thoughts in mostly aspects that affect their own lives as individuals.    

Believe me, overturning R v W would be a bad decision on a number of fronts.  I just say let people decide for themselves.  You don't agree, that is fine, enjoy life of calling everyone who has one a murderer.  You probably know quite a few already, you just don't know it... and if you did, would you condemn them?  Hate them for the rest of your life because they made a decision that did not involve you at all?

#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
- If artificial womb technology increases(which is inevitable) to the extent that from conception, a woman could cheaply and safely relocate the fetus into an artificial womb, therefore any pain the woman endures during pregnancy can be solved with renting an artificial womb.
Ectogenesis for the win.
Topic's author
#49
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@DBlaze
You might as well call masturbation murdering.  Is sperm not alive?  Where does the murder actually begin? 
Sperm does not have all the necessary chromosomes to be a human being.  A fetus does.
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Overpopulation is a huge problem. Something else will have to replace abortion for birth control. India is considering a 2 child maximum policy.
Topic's author
#51
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Killing people is not a moral nor effective way to reduce overpopulation.  You would have to kill 2.5 billion people to keep humanity at the carrying capacity.  A more effective way to solve overpopulation is to increase the carrying capacity.  A main argument concerning overpopulation is the fact that we use up Earth's natural resources.  Provided this means fossil fuels, as society uses more renewable energy, the carrying capacity will increase, therefore not making overpopulation as big of a problem.  Humans will inevitably colonize other planets and this would help reduce overpopulation without genocide to at least some extent.  Also, in the US, overpopulation is not a problem.  We have about 320 million people and comparably big places like Europe have had a similar lifestyle as America with over double the population.  If Roe V Wade never existed, then the US population would be around 375 million.  If Europe can thrive with 700 million people, I think the US can thrive with 375 million.

#52
Uther-Penguin
Uther-Penguin's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 59
0
0
5
Uther-Penguin's avatar
Uther-Penguin
0
0
5
-->
@Alec


I like his stance on social issues like the right to conversion therapy
Boy conversion therapy isn't a right, it's a human right's violation
Topic's author
#53
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Uther-Penguin
Finally, something other then abortion for once.

Anyway, conversion therapy should be legal for religious gays who don't want to be gay anymore.
#54
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
 the right to conversion therapy
I'm not really sure what that even means, the right to seek it?  I mean why don't people have that right currently?

#55
Uther-Penguin
Uther-Penguin's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 59
0
0
5
Uther-Penguin's avatar
Uther-Penguin
0
0
5
-->
@Alec
Majority of clients (or victims to be more accurate) are usually coerced by family or cultural pressures, which is why minors and youth are the most common age demographic to be subject to conversion. No reliable , scientific or peer reviewed evidence from the past century suggest any lasting success conversion therapy, only lasting emotional trauma. Resources for Religious LGBT folk should focused towards self acceptance, not self hate. 
#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@DBlaze

.... 

You want me to put myself in a fetus' position?  Not knowing anything that is going on.... Funny, you should have said shoes instead of position, I would have said they can't even wear shoes because they are inside the mother being sustained by the mother biologically.  It doesn't have a choice of life, it doesn't have a choice of death either.  Maybe it never wanted to be born.....
No, not precisely. I'm asking why you are different from the unborn. If you are human and it is human then why should we be able to kill it but not you?

Whether or not it wanted to be born is not the question but whether it is human or not. Is human life intrinsically valuable or not? If not then you can't argue that your life is any more valuable than its. If it is intrinsically valuable then the unborn should have as much right to life that you do. 


You might as well call masturbation murdering.  Is sperm not alive?  Where does the murder actually begin?  
It is not a human being. A potential something is nothing at all. The unborn is a unique human being. Sperm in itself does not have the ability to be a human being. Neither does the human egg. Fertilization has to take place. Sperm is not a complete human entity like the unborn. 


Conservatives are not usually protesters, except when it comes to the pro-life aspect, which I do not agree with because they are invading others privacy.  They do like to speak at venues and share their thoughts in mostly aspects that affect their own lives as individuals.
I think that is a hasty generalization. It may apply to some conservatives but when you lump all into that category I object. 
   

Believe me, overturning R v W would be a bad decision on a number of fronts.  I just say let people decide for themselves.  You don't agree, that is fine, enjoy life of calling everyone who has one a murderer.  You probably know quite a few already, you just don't know it... and if you did, would you condemn them?  Hate them for the rest of your life because they made a decision that did not involve you at all?


I disagree. Overturning Roe v Wade would be treating all humans as they should be treated and not allowing some to be murdered. 

It is not a question of hate but of mercy and justice. What does it matter what I do to a lump of rock or a vegetable in my garden? It matters greatly what I do, or it should, to another human being. Yet the unborn has been dehumanized and devalued. 

#57
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it a human being?

If it is not a human being then what kind of being is it?
It's a part of a woman's body. You have no say in how she treats her own body.

If it is a human being then it is being discriminated against. So, it is a human being? THAT is the question.
That is not the question at all. The question is does a woman have autonomy over her own body? The answer is yes. Anything else is misogyny.

Topic's author
#58
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Uther-Penguin
I understand that some people in the LGBT community are pressured, and they should not be pressured into it.  However, some of them would want to get it on their own.  If I were a religious LGBT person, I would want conversion therapy or something to make me straight and cis.
#59
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Wingnuts claim that homosexuality is a choice, if they don't want to be gay they can just choose not to be, really simple.
#60
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I disagree. Overturning Roe v Wade would be treating all humans as they should be treated
As long as there is an equivalent legislation making your bodily autonomy illegal, go for it. Treating all humans equally. Don't grow a cancer or you will have to apply to a government authority to have it removed. Is it that wingnuts can't think that makes them wingnuts or does being a wingnut prevent them from thinking.