CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is a person who votes for Democrats responsible for late term abortions?
Do you think a person who supports a party that supports late term abortions for any reason, is responsible for aborted late term Babies no matter if the Baby & Mother are healthy. You did not choose to abort the baby but you kept it legal to do so with your vote. This is not about life of mother or other extreme cases. This is about the majority of late term abortions for any reason such as Downs Syndrome Babies or any other reason.
Now please explain how this would be different from the arguments of Germans who said they were personally against Killing Jewish people, but aligned themselves more with the Nazi party on other issues. The Germans knew Jewish people were being killed but said they were not one issue voters. This is why they supported the Nazi's. Are these German's responsible for the deaths of Jews & how is that any different from voting for the very Democrats who keep late term bortions legal for any reason.
So for all the people who think voting over one issue is foolish, explain how you would vote if a Democrat were a KKK member. Would that one issue not effect your vote even though you supported his other stances? How about if a Democrat wanted to ban all Abortions at any stage, would you still vote for him if his opponent were pro choice.
To me this question points out the total hypocrisy of those who say they are personally pro life. Would you vote for a Politician who supported the right to kill newborns up to 3 months old? All of a sudden you would say NO WAY! You would say that one issue would stop you from voting for him. But when it comes to an unborn late term Baby (who is obviously no different a couple weeks before birth than after birth), you all of a sudden say it would not change your vote? That kind of pro life to me is so shallow & not real in the least. If you personally believe that he is a living growing human being who deserves the same right to life as the 3 months old child, how could you vote to allow him to be aborted.
Abortion is not a moral issue like drugs, sex, alcohol, etc. It is an issue of humanity, a living growing innocent life & you better believe most Conservatives would vote to save the lives of those late term Babies other than life of mother or extreme exceptions. There is such a thing as humanity.
Remember when they stopped slavery because of the inhumanity to Black people? Would you have said that those making moral laws preventing slavery were a controlling moralistic group of people who want to force us all to live moral lives? No you would have said exactly what pro life people say. Would you have said words like "I am personally against slavery but it's the law of the land & therefore I can not tell another person what they should do with their slave. Sound familiar? You say pro life people are trying to tell others what to do with that unborn Baby. Yes we are, we are trying to speak on behalf of the Slave & the unborn Babies. Do you posses the honesty & intellect to see that simple fact? From my dealings with pro choice people, the answer would be no.
Shake the indoctrination from your brain cells & try thinking about simple humanity. Not everyone has a right to end the life of another innocent being just as no one should have the right to make slaves of people. Please spare me the fetus & bunch of cells rhetoric. The so called "compassionate" Democrat party support late term abortions for any reason at any stage.
Well I have yet to hear one person say whether they would vote for a Democrat who was pro slavery, even if you agreed with all his other stances. Gee what a shock!
Either answer the question or prove your hypocrisy & double standards when you say you would vote for a politician supporting late term abortions for any reason even though you were personally pro life.
Are you a one issue voter over slavery? It's sad the lies & excuses pro choice people make to support the inhumanity. I guess you prove the point that you don't truly care about late term babies as you would slaves. Being personally against slavery is the one issue affecting your vote but saving the life of a viable late term Baby does not affect your vote. How many ways can I show you your double standard & total lack of credibility on the issue of abortion.
It is obvious, when you support Democrats who support late term abortions for any reason, you are just as responsible as those who voted for pro slavery politicians.
Pro choice people often bring up the plight of foster children to justify abortion on demand at any stage. The main reasons we have so many Foster kids are broken homes, parents who did not want the child & therefore should NOT have been having sex with someone they did not love, or who did not want any possible child conceived, or not willing to use birth control, etc. These are moral choices people make.
Most children who had a loving family & parents that died would be taken care of by relatives. This self love culture is creating foster children by the millions & most of it boils down to immorality.
If you care so for foster children, address the core reasons for their situations. I guess your answers are either aborting any so called possible foster child(as if you would ever know which children would not be adopted or wanted by their parents). Your answer would never involve speaking out on the amoral culture producing these foster kids because until you address the real cause, there will be more & more foster kids every decade. Follow the peace core's answer..... you don't keep giving people bushels of corn to stop the starvation, you give them the tools & knowledge to grow their own corn. PROBLEM SOLVED!
In this nation the problem is not starvation, it is immorality, irresponsibility & self love creating foster kids. The answer is education in moral values that would prevent the majority of broken homes. I realize that Liberals hate the very mention of morals & therefore refuse to address it. There is your core problem, people who REFUSE to address this immoral culture.
Their answer to the problem of foster kids is to end their lives them when they are younger. Can you even grasp the selfish nature of this mentality? The answer by pro choice people is the same as rounding up all the unwanted children & ending their lives as long as it is before they are born.
Are you the kind of person who would end the lives of special needs kids? Downs Syndrome children(special Olympic kids) are the majority of late term abortions.
Under your litany of excuses for abortions(which includes every abortion) many of you say it is ok to end the life of a Baby if the parents do not want it. WOW! Under that ludicrous excuse, dumping Babies into dumpsters must be ok to you. Oh that's right, those couple weeks before birth makes all the difference from dumping them in dumpsters to doing it with abortion.
Talking with pro choice people is kind of like beating your head against the wall. I keep making the mistake of thinking I am talking to people who sometimes actually look within & ask themselves what kind of people they truly are and what they support.
One thing I've found is that the most adamant supporters of Abortion on demand are people who have had abortions. I'm not here to judge a person who has had an abortion. I'm trying to speak out on behalf of those innocent children who can not defend themselves. Kind of like Slavery. I want America to respect all innocent life just as we finally did for Slaves. Those slave owners screamed much like Pro choice people. You will not tell me what to do with my slave! You will not tell me what to do with my unborn Baby!
They are not children! They are foetuses! There is a massive difference, a child is a born human who has human rights and is living independently. A foetus is an unborn developing human who has no rights. I agree that abortions shouldn't happen after about 3 months seeing as the child then becomes too much like a developed human. But before that, the foetus cannot think or feel. They live completely offf their mother and if they didn't they would die. In 90% of abortions, the foetus is no bigger than a large group of unspecified cells. Does that ball of cells deserve human rights?
You just said "I agree that abortions shouldn't happen after about 3 months seeing as the child then becomes too much like a developed human".
Read the name of this debate topic once more please. We are talking bout Democrats who vote for their party that supports late term abortions for any reason. So if you are against late term abortions for any reason, are you going to be yet one more phoney & say you are not responsible when you elect the very politicians who will keep it legal? So if a politician wanted to bring back slavery, you would still vote for him if you liked his other stances? Please think about what you support with your vote.
It amazes me every person who wants Government laws to protect their life from a killer, does not care if an innocent Baby's life is protected by those same laws.
That's slightly disconnected argument. I don't need protection from being aborted. The laws preventing a killer from killing me actually help protect me, but a law against abortion doesn't. I do want the laws that protect me to be extended to a fetus. Once the fetus is born it should be protected. ;)
As long as we're using nazis as an example- one of the tactics the nazis used to gain and maintain power were extorting and murdering dissidents. Would you continue to vocally support a pro-life position when you and your family were under a very real, very credible threat of death for doing so? I think not- If your choices were pro-choice or a bullet to the back of you and your immediate families heads, I imagine you might look at the issue quite differently- and if you value the lives of nameless potential people over that of your own and that of your family, your priorities are seriously out of whack.
If a given voter receives a significant amount of government assistance, voting republican for the pro-life issue also means supporting cutbacks to the assistance you are relying on to survive. While this is far less immediate and visceral than the threat of death for opposing the nazis, it's still a similar dillema.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of those who are pro-choice also support late term abortion, which itself is illegal in most of the US except under certain circumstances.
Incidentally, you've inadvertently hit on a huge problem with politics in the US- A politician can tailor his or her stance to garner the most number of votes possible specifically because any given demographic will reliably weight certain issues far more highly than others. A ridiculous platform that may hold zero possibility of success otherwise can rake in the votes by targeting these issues; near as I can tell, this is how more or less every politician gets elected these days, democrat, republican, or otherwise.
Your comments on Nazi's killing people who were against killing Jews has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Who cares what a person would say with a gun to his head. I would tell him anything he wanted to hear & then keep on fighting to stop the holocaust or late term abortions. Who is putting a gun to your head when you vote for that politician who keeps the late term abortions legal for any reason.
That is not a "potential" life! It is a life every bit the same as your's and mine deserving of the sames rights to life, Liberty & pursuit of happiness.
Spare me any arguments about Conservatives wanting to cut back on the rate of growth of social programs as if that would mean people would die. GET SOME SEMBLANCE OF REALITY HERE. If we do not cut back on these programs, THERE WILL BE NO PROGRAMS IN THE FUTURE! We will go bankrupt like Detroit. If you truly care about the poor, start balancing our budgets & that does not mean just cutting military. We need to cut across the board!!
My comments regarding the Nazi's treatment of the Jews has everything to do with your argument, as it is pointing out a fundamental flaw with your analogy, as I indicated and you apparently at least managed to pick up on, even if you interpreted me incorrectly.
I did not say potential life- I said potential people. Nobody is arguing that a fetus is not biologically alive, because that's a patently ridiculous claim. However, a fetus is completely lacking the capacity for any form of thought or sensory input prior to partway through the second trimester; as such, it does not yet have any of the traits that we prescribe to personhood; compare a brain-dead individual. They are still biologically alive, but everything that made them a person is gone. For a first trimester fetus, everything that will eventually make them a person has not yet formed.
And for what it's worth, I agree with the conservatives somewhat on scaling back social programs- I was not arguing my personal stance or justification for voting Democrat, because I don't vote Democrat. Or Republican, for that matter, but thats another matter entirely. Rather, I was objecting to your short-sighted shoehorning of those who disagree with you, and pointing out (as others have) that there are more issues at stake. People on government assistance also tend, on the whole, to be poorly educated. Perhaps you're right, that its highly unlikely that anyone is going to die due to scaling back social programs- but try telling that to a person who relies on those programs and is already barely managing to keep their family afloat.
You need to work on the concept of entertaining an idea without having to adopt it, and you need to try putting yourself in others shoes before you start demonizing them. Republicans are not better than Democrats- they're equally fucked up, mostly in the same ways, with a few key differences that have far more to do with manipulating voters than they do with actual moral concerns.
Do you know what you are doing & really can not even see it? You are doing what the Liberal media has conditioned you to do. Lash out at anyone who dares mentions morals & responsibility, etc. You have been taught to label those who speak out on moral issues, as judgmental right wingers trying to force moral laws on the nation. (especially moral issues spoken of in the the Bible). You have no problem speaking out on moral issues such as smoking, spanking our children, etc. etc.
You say you agree with things I am saying but you hate to hear people like me shoehorning people who disagree with me. I was not even speaking to you. You said you did not vote for Democrats. Read the debate argument once more please. Think of your knee jerk reactions whenever moral values are lifted up by a politician etc. That politician is crucified by our media & by Democrat politicians. They use it as scare tactics for political gains & you have swallowed it like a good little serf.
I've lived a long enough life to have a very good grasp on the kind of people i speak of. I'm shoehorning no one. One fault i will admit to is that I do lump some people debating me as Liberals because I figure anyone arguing these simple positions must be Liberal. Sorry if that is not the case with you. But again, ask yourself why the anger for my pretty basic moral positions that most people claim they agree with.
Do you know what you are doing & really can not even see it?
I know exactly what I'm doing, and can see it quite clearly. I'm pointing out fundamental flaws in your argument that undermine your own position, and that your demonizing of the other side does not benefit your cause, but simply drives those who are on the fence away. Do you seriously expect demonizing people to result in them suddenly feeling shame, and changing their views? No- if it makes them feel shame, that will lead to anger directed at whomever caused the shame in their view, and that would be you- and this only reinforces their viewpoint.
You are doing what the Liberal media has conditioned you to do. Lash out at anyone who dares mentions morals & responsibility, etc. You have been taught to label those who speak out on moral issues, as judgmental right wingers trying to force moral laws on the nation. (especially moral issues spoken of in the the Bible). You have no problem speaking out on moral issues such as smoking, spanking our children, etc. etc.
I have no problem speaking out on any moral issue, as you yourselves have noticed and indicated by this post. First you say that I have been conditioned to oppose anyone who speaks out on moral issues, and then you say that I have no problem speaking out on moral issues. Which is it?
I lean conservative on many issues, but I am also pro-choice. I believe that to be the more moral of the two positions when the impact on society is considered as a whole, and I'll stick to that. No- your issue is not with me being 'conditioned' to avoid moral issues in general- your issue is that I don't agree with you on this specific moral issue.
You say you agree with things I am saying but you hate to hear people like me shoehorning people who disagree with me. I was not even speaking to you. You said you did not vote for Democrats. Read the debate argument once more please. Think of your knee jerk reactions whenever moral values are lifted up by a politician etc. That politician is crucified by our media & by Democrat politicians. They use it as scare tactics for political gains & you have swallowed it like a good little serf.
I said I agree with some things you are saying- but you most certainly were speaking to me, and with a healthy helping of vitriol I might add. Read your own prior response to me once more, please. I don't generally knee jerk to politicians primarily because I'm of the mind that they're simply ambitious and power-hungry. All of them, regardless of the party, and there is a high burden of proof to convince me otherwise for any of them. Both sides engage in scare tactics and take pot shots at one another, and I'll have none of it. If either of us has simply swallowed what we've been fed, it's you, because of how obviously shortsighted you are regarding this issue.
I've lived a long enough life to have a very good grasp on the kind of people i speak of. I'm shoehorning no one.
The hell you are- you're boiling down the entire democratic position to one issue, and labeling anyone who votes democrat regardless of their reasons for doing so as being culpable for that issue. That is short-sighted, naive, and quite simply ridiculous at a basic level.
One fault i will admit to is that I do lump some people debating me as Liberals because I figure anyone arguing these simple positions must be Liberal.
Your real fault isn't in lumping others- it's in that you have a mentality that this is a binary issue. We aren't dealing with two groups, a la Liberals vs. Conservatives, nor are we dealing with three groups, a la Liberals vs Moderates vs Conservatives. We're dealing with hundreds of millions of different viewpoints that fall somewhere on the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum on various issues. As I've said- I lean conservatively on a number of issues, and liberally on others.
Sorry if that is not the case with you. But again, ask yourself why the anger for my pretty basic moral positions that most people claim they agree with.
I'm not angry with the basic moral position of being pro-life. If I were angry, it would be because of you demonizing millions of people because they don't ignore all other aspects of a politicians platform in favor of the one issue you care about most. It is your actions and words that I take issue with, not your basic position.
A word of advice: If you truly want to affect meaningful change, you are far better served trying to work with the opposition and sway them that way than you are by demonizing and ostracizing them. That's the irony here- your efforts to promote the pro-life position only serve to solidify the pro-choice position. The way you're going about it here simply makes the pro-life position look bad and reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are bigots in the eyes of the audience. I know that you are not representative of all conservatives, but not everybody who reads this will think it through clearly.
I will ask you once more & I'm sure will never get a real answer. Would you vote for a politician if he supported slavery, but you agreed with him on most other issues?
Now both you & I know you would never vote for a person who supported slavery but you & every other person debating me will sit & try to explain away how I am stupid for thinking that people should most definitely not vote for politicians on the basis of certain issues of humanity.
IF the pro-slavery politician was somehow the preferable option to something even worse by the other party, and there was significant likelihood of the other party receiving a lot of votes, then yes- I would. It would take something pretty significant for me to approve of slavery over something else. I would support a politician blatantly in favor of late term abortion over a politician in favor of slavery, if I was presented with a similar situation that was a de facto dichotomy.
So, you're wrong in that case, ultimately- I standby my standpoint that at times the lesser of two evils is the only option, and that it is the perceived evil by the voter rather than any objectively measurable evil that guides the vote. Different people have different experiences and value things differently.
So to all of you who say you are not a one issue voter, but are when it comes to slavery, thanks for showing your double standard. I Baby's life is not worth as much as a person being forced to be a slave.
Is it nice living in that little world of self love & denial?
I don't know exactly how this amounts to a dispute to my statement.
I did not note anything regarding abortion in the preceding post. I did not make any statement remotely resembling a double standard either. Nor did I make a value comparison between an aborted fetus and a slave.
How many children have you and those you know adopted? Is it enough to even begin to make a dent in the additional million per year?
You just keep spewing Pro choice rhetoric. You know full well there are waiting lists for new born Babies to be adopted. It is almost impossible to debate anyone & not be condescending when they do not put a life of an innocent Baby at the TOP of their priority list.
Again no one is answering my question. Would you vote for a pro slavery politician even though that is only one issue and you agree with his other stances. Until someone admits their double standard, you are wasting my time.
You just keep spewing Pro choice rhetoric. You know full well there are waiting lists for new born Babies to be adopted. It is almost impossible to debate anyone & not be condescending when they do not put a life of an innocent Baby at the TOP of their priority list
Yes, there are waiting lists- there are typically, at any given time, about 100,000 people in the process of waiting to adopt a newborn. That is largely irrelevant in the face of putting up over a million additional babies for adoption per year. Moreover, isn't there a moral question about newborn adoption anyway? Why should a newborn baby get to be adopted over a child who is 3, 4, 5 years old, or older, who is in need of adoptive parents?
And I'll freely admit that the life of an unborn potential child is not at the top of my priority list- the interests of myself, my spouse, and my children trump that as far as I'm concerned. I make no apology for this.
Again no one is answering my question. Would you vote for a pro slavery politician even though that is only one issue and you agree with his other stances. Until someone admits their double standard, you are wasting my time.
As I said before- I would vote for a pro slavery politician only if the sum total of the other choices positions were somehow worse than slavery. I am not speculating as to what said positions on the other choice would be. There is no double standard there; I would feel ashamed to vote for someone in favor of slavery, but I am willing to swallow a bitter pill if the alternative is worse. Evidently, you aren't.
I think we are through. You refuse to admit you would never vote for someone who was pro slavery because no other candidate would be worse. That one issue would effect your vote but when it comes to the issue of late term abortions, that you say you oppose, you say you are not a one issue voter. That one issue s worse than any other issue by far.
The life of a "Potential person"? That's how you can sleep at night & still call yourself a person with compassion? That Baby is a living person at an early stage of life. No different than a one year old and the potential of reaching adulthood.
I think we are through. You refuse to admit you would never vote for someone who was pro slavery because no other candidate would be worse. That one issue would effect your vote but when it comes to the issue of late term abortions, that you say you oppose, you say you are not a one issue voter. That one issue s worse than any other issue by far.
Oh, hardly. I would oppose late term abortions under similar circumstances, and I've already touched on the fact that I do not have a tendency to vote democrat- and nowhere near all democrats favor late term abortion at any rate.
The life of a "Potential person"? That's how you can sleep at night & still call yourself a person with compassion? That Baby is a living person at an early stage of life. No different than a one year old and the potential of reaching adulthood.
Actually, quite fundamentally different from a one year old. A one year old child has a developed central and peripheral nervous system, and is either just beginning or nearly to the point of developing a sense of self, a consciousness, and personality. A first trimester fetus only has the most primitive of nervous systems. Such things as a concept of self, consciousness, a personality, or anything resembling what we could call a thought have not developed yet. "Person" is more than just a biologically alive person. Yes, a potential person- in that it has the capacity to develop the traits that will make it a person, but does not yet have those traits.
Time to ignore! We are talking late term abortions yet STILL you bring up 1st trimester. Your excuses are a joke. We are talking ending a healthy late term life & you spew rhetoric about potential life. The Democrat party supports abortions on demand for any reason at any stage. Any so called pro life Democrat who would support that party is a total hypocrite!
We are talking late term abortions yet STILL you bring up 1st trimester.
No. YOU are talking late term abortions obsessively, as if a majority (or even a large minority!) of democrats or pro-choice individuals in general support late term abortion- news flash: they don't. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice individuals AND politicians are against late term abortions except under the most extreme of circumstances, which preclude the healthy mother/child scenarios you've described.
WE are talking about the fundamental flaws with your position, generalizations, and your demonization of others- you by stating the flagrant flaws, and me by pointing them out. Discussing MY views on the issue, eg. the first trimester limit is a part of that.
Your excuses are a joke.
I haven't made a single excuse here. I've maintained my stance from the get go. If you were referring to my hypotheticals earlier, well... those aren't my excuses for my behaviour at all.
We are talking ending a healthy late term life & you spew rhetoric about potential life.
No, YOU are obsessively spewing rhetoric about some farcical idea that there are politicians supporting late term abortions getting any significant portion of the nations votes. Also, I never said anything regarding potential life- no such thing. A zygote IS alive biologically- it is a potential person, in that it does not yet possess any of the qualities that define a person, but can reasonably be expected to develop those.
The Democrat party supports abortions on demand for any reason at any stage.
No, they don't. A minority of the party supports this notion- the majority does not. By that logic, I can state that the Republican party supports suicide bombing, because one Republican I know proposed such tactics in response to terrorism. Extremists are not representative of the whole.
Any so called pro life Democrat who would support that party is a total hypocrite!
Not a hypocrite- a hypocrite holds others to a standard that they themselves do not meet. A hypocrite in this scenario would be something akin to someone- say, a politician- who supports pro-life legislation while still keeping it an option for himself or herself, either illegally or overseas.
While we're on the topic of hypocrites, though- How about a person who is completely pro-life, offering adoption as an option, yet still opposing adoption by gay couples, despite the fact that there are far more children awaiting adoption than there are straight families to adopt them NOW, even with abortion legal?
Your statement "IF the pro-slavery politician was somehow the preferable option to something even worse by the other party, and there was significant likelihood of the other party receiving a lot of votes, then yes- I would".
So tell me how the Republican party's policies are worse than killing a viable Baby? If you waste my time with the lies of how Republicans want to starve children then I will ignore your ludicrous rhetoric. We are talking about healthy viable Babies & healthy mothers.
If you waste my time with the lies of how Republicans want to starve children then I will ignore your ludicrous rhetoric.
Ok, last and only warning here. Whether or not you feel that said rhetoric is ludicrous or not, or whether I personally believe it are largely immaterial. For an individual on government assistance, continuing to receive that government assistance is a bigger issue than whether or not some nameless girl can get an abortion. That's a fact. The starvation bit may be hyperbole, but we ALL tend to have an exaggerated experience of our problems when we compare them to how we perceive others going through them. If you wish to debate with me, you need to drop the condescension, and drop it now. Ok? Ok.
So tell me how the Republican party's policies are worse than killing a viable Baby?
I'm not supporting either the democrat or republican party, as I've said over and over now. If you don't get what I'm trying to say here, I doubt you're going to, but as long as we're on this topic maybe I'll give you a slice of why I'm pro-choice.
You seem to be using your own definition of viable here, so I'll use my own as well as it would seem to be fair game. I will define a viable baby as one that is not only physically healthy, but is also being born to parents/a parent who is intellectually, financially, and emotionally capable of raising it properly, AND wants to do so. I would further assert that no (or next to no) 'viable' babys are aborted under that definition.
Yes, I know- that was just inflammatory. You'll have to excuse me after your overall attitude. So how about some numbers? There are over one million abortions performed per year, Currently over 400,000 children in the foster care system, just under half of which would like to be adopted. Approximately 130,000 adoptions per year, about 30,000 of which are newborn adoptions. There IS somewhat of a waiting period for legal adoption as well, which is the ONLY reason that there are actually people who seriously want to adopt that haven't yet.
The foster care system is already extremely overtaxed, and there simply aren't anywhere close to enough families seeking adoption for adoption to be a legitimate option- if abortion is banned, the overwhelming majority of those million kids per year are going into the foster system which is already lacking in oversight and staff and full of all manner of abuse. Yes- I rate the welfare of these actual people, with thoughts and dreams, over those of a fetus who hasn't even developed the capacity for self awareness or conscious thought.
THAT is the huge problem with banning abortion. Those who seek to ban abortion need a plan for how our adoption and foster care systems are to absorb an additional million kids per year. I don't like abortion, but given the state of things it is a necessary evil. I don't even need a huge atrocity on the side of pro-lifers to justify it- the pro-life position is fundamentally flawed and short-sighted because of that fact right there. Pro-life is not on any kind of moral high ground, and is NOT thinking of the kids- it is thinking of yourself, and giving yourself the warm fuzzies or pushing your own religious/moral ideas with no actual thought to the ramifications.
This isn't a problem of morality at the moment, and it's not one of rhetoric. It is a problem of straight up numbers- I might lend some serious consideration to a pro-life position IF a viable solution regarding what to do with all those children can be proposed
Everything you just said is a matter of morality. Most foster children are results of a broken home, parents who did not want the child & therefore should NOT have been having sex with someone they did not love or who did not want any possible child conceived or not willing to use birth control, etc. These are moral choices people make.
Most children who had a loving family & parents that died would be taken care of by relatives. This self love culture is creating foster children by the millions & most of it boils down to immorality.
If you care so for foster children, address the core reasons for their situations. I guess your answers are either aborting any so called possible foster child(as if you would ever know which children would not be adopted or wanted by their parents). Your answer would never involve speaking out on the amoral culture producing these foster kids because until you address the real cause, there will be more & more foster kids every decade. Follow the peace core's answer. You don't keep giving people bushels of corn to stop the starvation, you give them the tools & knowledge to grow their own corn. PROBLEM SOLVED! In this nation the problem is not starvation, it is immorality, irresponsibility & self love creating foster kids. The answer is education in moral values that would prevent the majority of broken homes. I realize that Liberals hate the very mention of morals & therefore refuse to address it. There is your core problem, people who REFUSE to address this immoral culture.
Their answer to the problem of foster kids is to end their lives them when they are younger. Can you even grasp the selfish nature of this mentality? The answer by pro choice people is the same as rounding up all the unwanted children & ending their lives. You actually call yourself an intelligent person who justifies late term abortions for ANY reason as long as the child is younger.
Are you the kind of person who would end the lives of special needs kids? Downs Syndrome children(special Olympic kids) are the majority of late term abortions.
Under your litany of excuses for abortions(which includes every abortion) you say it is ok to end the life of a Baby if the parents do not want it. WOW! Under that ludicrous excuse, dumping Babies into dumpsters must be ok to you. Oh that's right, those couple weeks before birth makes all the difference from dumping them in dumpsters to doing it with abortion.
Everything you just said is a matter of morality. Most foster children are results of a broken home, parents who did not want the child & therefore should NOT have been having sex with someone they did not love or who did not want any possible child conceived or not willing to use birth control, etc. These are moral choices people make.
You're right- and morality is subjective. Please enlighten us as to why you feel that everybody should conform to your particular definition of morality.
Most children who had a loving family & parents that died would be taken care of by relatives. This self love culture is creating foster children by the millions & most of it boils down to immorality.
Millions of orphans worldwide would disagree with you strongly.
If you care so for foster children, address the core reasons for their situations.
Which core reasons? If you're referring to the reasons they are in the foster care system in the first place, that does absolutely nothing for children already in the system, merely reduces new entries into it.
If you're referring to the conditions they endure, that means more money- which I would be willing to bear a tax burden for- to ensure proper oversight for the program and to minimize neglect and abuse. I can certainly get behind that, as I've stated. But adding more children to the system EVERY YEAR than are currently in it now is not something that we can bear financially.
I guess your answers are either aborting any so called possible foster child(as if you would ever know which children would not be adopted or wanted by their parents). Your answer would never involve speaking out on the amoral culture producing these foster kids because until you address the real cause, there will be more & more foster kids every decade. Follow the peace core's answer. You don't keep giving people bushels of corn to stop the starvation, you give them the tools & knowledge to grow their own corn. PROBLEM SOLVED! In this nation the problem is not starvation, it is immorality, irresponsibility & self love creating foster kids. The answer is education in moral values that would prevent the majority of broken homes. I realize that Liberals hate the very mention of morals & therefore refuse to address it. There is your core problem, people who REFUSE to address this immoral culture.
Whether I know WHICH children would not be adopted is immaterial- as I noted, this is not a moral issue, this is a numbers issue. Sure, some portion of the mothers would opt to keep their baby if abortion was not an option. Others would opt to get an abortion illegally. The majority would be put up for adoption, with a very small number actually getting adopted given the number of families seeking to adopt. The rest, a very large number, would end up dumped into the foster care system, which we have both acknowledged now as being overloaded.
What moral code do you feel we should be enforcing, and how would you propose we enforce it? You act as though immorality, particularly bearing unwanted children, is something new- here's a hint: It isn't.
I can freely acknowledge that our culture is objectively immoral- because morality is subjective and it differs from person to person, on the average any given person is in violation of somebody's moral code, oftentimes even their own. I acknowledge the problem- but how would you suggest we go about addressing it?
You want to say that a person who votes for democrats is responsible for late term abortions? Then by that same logic, those who vote pro-life are responsible for the suffering and conditions resulting from our foster and adoption systems becoming further overloaded. You can't have it both ways- you want to ban abortion? You need a plan for what to do with the extra kids. If you're involving yourself with the process on moral grounds, you don't get to cut ties with it as soon as the kid is born.
Their answer to the problem of foster kids is to end their lives them when they are younger. Can you even grasp the selfish nature of this mentality? The answer by pro choice people is the same as rounding up all the unwanted children & ending their lives. You actually call yourself an intelligent person who justifies late term abortions for ANY reason as long as the child is younger.
Your answer to the problem of abortion involves spreading resources for the welfare of children in foster care even more thin to accomodate individuals who have not even been conceived yet. Can you even grasp the selfish nature of that mentality? That hundreds of thousands of children should endure further suffering to satisfy your definition of morality? I don't propose ending the lives of unwanted children- I propose keeping that option available, as there are already more children in the foster system and up for adoption than there are families willing to adopt them. You're valueing the individual over the majority, which is more or less the definition of selfishness. And you keep circling back to late term abortion- I don't condone or support this, I feel that the cutoff point for abortion should be at the end of the first trimester, as the nervous system develops sufficiently enough during the second trimester for the fetus to experience things such as pain and fear on a primal level, even if it is nowhere near truly conscious yet. I would appreciate if you would ditch the strawman and address my actual position.
Are you the kind of person who would end the lives of special needs kids? Downs Syndrome children(special Olympic kids) are the majority of late term abortions.
I would support the decision of a parent to perform a first trimester abortion on a fetus identified as having downs syndrome. I would not support that same decision in the second or third trimesters, nor would I support that decision after the child has been born.
Under your litany of excuses for abortions(which includes every abortion) you say it is ok to end the life of a Baby if the parents do not want it. WOW! Under that ludicrous excuse, dumping Babies into dumpsters must be ok to you. Oh that's right, those couple weeks before birth makes all the difference from dumping them in dumpsters to doing it with abortion.
No- I say it is ok to terminate the development of an early fetus if the parents do not want it. This does not extend to condoning abortions in the second or third trimester, much less dumping babies in dumpsters. The couple of weeks before birth are not the difference to me- the level of development of the nervous system is.
You said... "And you keep circling back to late term abortion- I don't condone or support this, I feel that the cutoff point for abortion should be at the end of the first trimester, as the nervous system develops sufficiently enough during the second trimester for the fetus to experience things such as pain and fear on a primal level, even if it is nowhere near truly conscious yet. I would appreciate if you would ditch the strawman and address my actual position."
Read the title of this argument once more please. It is all about people like you who say you are against late term abortions yet you STILL vote for the very people who keep it legal.
You said... "You're right- and morality is subjective. Please enlighten us as to why you feel that everybody should conform to your particular definition of morality."
You just repeated the same argument I've heard from every Liberal I've ever debated.
"Whose morals you say? You can't even define it, so where does that leave a nation's direction when growing Liberal thought says we must censor any mention of morality because under their own logic, whose morals do we try & live up to? The result of such a ludicrous mentality is a nation void of moral values, drifting in the wind with absolutely no road map to follow.
Your answers to the problems created from an amoral society?
1. Abortion to deal with the results of the sexual resolution.
2. Sex Ed. in schools because you have given up on the notion that teaching our kids moral values & teaching them to abstain actually works.(it worked 60 years ago & yes I know, teens were getting pregnant back then.... BUT NOT NEAR AS MUCH!)
3. Forcing tax payers to pay for Abortions & welfare for the ever growing numbers of irresponsible people living immoral lives.
4. Putting metal detectors & police in our schools to try & protect our kids from a degrading culture.
5. Taking guns from law abiding citizens to try & stop the gun violence. (funny we had no problems with Gangs, or of kids mass killing kids 60 years ago when we had all kinds of guns.)
Here in lies the core reason for our nation's ever growing immoral culture & all the resulting problems such as swollen welfare roles & foster homes. This nation came up from a Judeo Christian heritage. The core values interwoven from that heritage were in-bedded throughout the fabric of our culture & our laws. People were not forced to follow those morals, or forced to believe in any religion. Most Atheists 60 years ago had no problem when our media & schools & Government lifted up Christian moral values. Values we all understood were good for a nation & for our children.
Along came the Liberal attack on our Christian heritage. The Liberal mentality is bent on censoring any mention of our Christian heritage in public schools, Government, all walks of public life. This was done all in the name of Separation of Church & state, NO WHERE in the constitution. Their argument was so laughable because after the constitution was written, our religious freedoms were never questioned & our schools were even allowed to require Christian school teachers because they wanted good moral teachers with Christian values leading & teaching our children.
To truly understand the meanings of certain text written in the Constitution, we sometimes must go back & look at society years after the Constitution was written. We did not see out rage over the obvious Christian values intertwined in the culture at that time. People understood the constitution stood up for the freedom to express those values, NOT SEPARATE THEM!
So here we are, a nation that does not dare mention moral values & spends Trillions trying to fix the result of an amoral culture. As long as people like you keep electing Liberal Democrats, our nation is over. It will fall from within.
Conservatives such as myself want no one being forced to conform to any one person's or political groups's notion of morals. We have seen the results of this with the Liberal's political correctness & the forcing of us all to conform to their version of moral values. What Conservatives want is to get back to our nation's heritage where the very mention of moral values is not censored. Our children & our culture desperately need direction. A nation without faith is lost because like it or not, only God can enlighten a people to moral values. Man can not make morals for other men because as you say, no man thinks alike. This is a free nation where no person should ever be forced to believe in God, but an intelligent person understands a nation needs the moral values that come from faith in God. Not a God of hate as we see in other nations, but a God of love for all mankind as our Christian heritage teaches.
Not voting for a candidate the best fits your views just because of one issue is foolish. Grant it, I am completely against abortion, but if a candidate best fits my interest and supports abortion, I will vote for him.
There are a small number of Democrats that does not support abortion and vice versa for the Republicans supporting abortion.
I personally believe that party affiliations on ballots should be banned, so you would have to know who you are voting for.
I agree with you, I don't vote all together though. As for choosing a candidate that best supports my views, I'd prefer it if all of the things I could vote for were presented in list fashion, and instead of voting for such and such person to enact the change I want, if I could just vote on the exact law I wanted changed.
Priorities!!!!!!!! If other issues are more important to you than the lives of healthy late term Babies, then WOW! Is this the new American? If it is then I will start being ashamed of my country.
I am Conservative & if I had the choice between a truly pro life liberal who would actually fight to stop late term abortions & a pro choice Conservative (oximoron), then I would vote for the Liberal. I am not a phoney who claims to be personally against late term abortions for any reason & then votes for the politician fighting to keep it legal.
What thinking person does not care for every innocent life killed? Does any person with an ounce of humanity justify killing 1.5% of certain group of innocent people?
I thought we were talking about priorities. Your priorities are to save 1.5% of a small group of "people". Maybe I want to help more people by focusing on topics that can actually change something and affect more people.
It's very convenient how you never address my analogies. Would you vote for a politician who was a KKK member if you agreed with all his other stances?
Would you vote for a man who wanted to legalize killing children up to 3 months old after birth? Why not? If our Liberal justices ruled that 3 month old children could be legally killed would you vote for those politicians who agreed & kept it legal?
Maybe you can start to grasp what I am talking about. Just because a selfish culture, losing it's humanity can make it legal to abort late term Babies for any reason, does not make it right to support it with your vote.
If you truly care about innocent life, prove it with your vote. There are absolutely no more important issues on the planet. The right to life for us all must always be paramount.
Your nazi example isn't comparable because the nazi party actively performed extermination of "inferiors", but the Democrat party has not actively performed abortions, they want to lift the gov't ban on abortion, but not for the sake of exterminating the unborn.
If anything, the fault of the late term abortions are of the mother and whoever is performing the abortion (hopefully a doctor).
As always, you will twist the entire point. The point was not comparing the motives of the inhumanity towards Jewish people or unborn Babies. The point was how people are using the same ludicrous arguments to justify their support of the very people keeping the inhumanity legal.
Both pro choice people & Germans claim to be personally against the inhumanity whether it be late term abortions for any reason, or the holocaust. Both groups claim they do not give their support based on one issue, etc. WHAT A HIDEOUS COP OUT!
We are talking about killing innocent human life & people such as yourself excuse supporting those who keep it legal.
You can pretend to care about innocent life, & maybe you can convince yourself you are not partially to blame, but who are you kidding?
The point was not comparing the motives of the inhumanity towards Jewish people or unborn Babies.
The point was how people are using the same ludicrous arguments to justify their support of the very people keeping the inhumanity legal.
Neither of these things make Democrats responsible for late term abortion.
Both pro choice people & Germans claim to be personally against the inhumanity whether it be late term abortions for any reason, or the holocaust. Both groups claim they do not give their support based on one issue, etc. WHAT A HIDEOUS COP OUT!
We are talking about killing innocent human life & people such as yourself excuse supporting those who keep it legal.
You can keep repeating the same argument over and over again, but that is not addressing my arguments.
You can pretend to care about innocent life, & maybe you can convince yourself you are not partially to blame, but who are you kidding?
I suppose that I can, but I really don't care for protecting living things simply because they have done nothing wrong. I'll still swat at flies, living and blameless creatures, if it is convenient for me to do so.
Thank you for at finally being honest about your your so called being personally pro life when it comes to late term abortions for convenience. If you are comparing a late term Baby to an insect then we have nothing more to say.
Thank you for at finally being honest about your your so called being personally pro life when it comes to late term abortions for convenience.
Against abortion at third trimester =/= pro-life at third trimester.
Please tell me where you've read that I've ever claimed to be pro-life specifically at the third trimester, and not just against abortion past the second trimester.
I'm not pro-life at any stage of development of the fetus, abortion is simply too dangerous past the third trimester, that is part of the reason why I'm against it, I possess no sentiment towards protecting life for the sake of doing so, or because it is blameless and innocent.
If you are comparing a late term Baby to an insect then we have nothing more to say.
Again, what I've said is that being blameless does not negate all reasons to kill someone or something, thus I have no qualms with killing insects.
My claims have not been addressed, and insofar none of what you've said has actually shown that Democrats are responsible for late term abortions.
It's painstakingly clear that you're really just using this as an excuse shoehorn a few off-topic rants.
I don't see where SitaraForJesus made any claim about the frequency in occurrence of such a position within the Democratic Party, just that it is a position.
In regards to the debate “Is a person who votes for Democrats responsible for late term abortions?” the answer is no; not all democrats agree with late term abortions. So just because someone votes democrat for various reasons, they can still disagree with the Party’s stance on abortions.
That is not what i said. I said that liberals or Dems can be prolife. I never said all or most are. I never made a positive claim as to how many Dems are prochoice or prolife. Stop the strawman. Strawman: You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending. Conclusion: You put words in my mouth that I never said.
I realize there are a very few pro life Democrats. I remember one who claimed he was pro life in Congress when they were debating voting for Obamacare. Guess what? He voted for Obamacare that supported forcing us all to pay for abortions.
Forgive me if i give no credibility to any Democrat who supports a party of Abortion on demand for any reason. They should change parties & then work to change the Republican party on issues of disagreement. There are obvious priorities in life.
So the slave owner was responsible for having slaves & when you voted to elect politicians to keep slavery legal, you are not at fault? WOW! Talk about denial!
That is no different than the abortion issue & your vote. Look in the mirror the next time you say it is her fault while you keep it legal with your vote.
It boils down to the fact that that mother chose to murder her child and regardless of what happened to legalize that it was her decision whether she should or not.
So the slave owner was responsible for having slaves & when you voted to elect politicians to keep slavery legal, you are not at fault? WOW! Talk about denial!
That is no different than the abortion issue & your vote. Look in the mirror the next time you say it is her fault while you keep it legal with your vote.