Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Stevetc

Reward Points:65
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
stevetc(65) Clarified
1 point

Why would the "big bang" imply anything other than the moment of the actualization of love into creation from the theological standpoint. Why wouldn't God still be the author of life? I guess what I'm asking you to clarify is whether or not you are approaching the question of creation from pure material cosmology, or are you supportive of the theological creation only? It sounds as if you are a Christian, by use of this statement, (which I am also), but reluctant to embrace the idea that in a sense physics and metaphysics work together in description of the universe in both material and theological/philosophical perspectives. In other words, are you a Christian who rules out the theory of "intlligent design", wherein the Christian ends up by necessity denying the material science?

1 point

Government shutdowns are a joke. It is just bad politics to make one party or another look like bad guys for holding a belief that they find important enough to go to the mat over. In this most recent case, it is in order to ensure the defunding of "Planned Parenthood", which has not business with Federal tax money to begin with. I personally think the ones who would look like schlemiels in this instance would be the Democrats who insist on continuing to fund an immoral, unethical, killing machine, with the hard earned tax money from poor and middle class people who aren't even being asked what they think about it. EVERYTHING that isn't a specific Federal Government entity should be defunded with American tax dollars. Tax dollar are suppsed to be going to run the Federal Government and it's agencies. Period. So yeah....I think the Republicans need to truss up their cajones, and take this think wherever it goes, never giving an inch, with strength and authority. The Goverment may "shut down" for a few days in the process, but as a former 35 year Federal Employee who is a veteran of two such shut downs, it doesn't effect anything in the long run. You get emergency pay during the shut down, and you square up afterwards. Those who are "essential personnel" even stay at work. It's just political maneuvering. Those in favor of defunding planned parenthood, if they believe it's important, should do whatever it takes to ensure that this is done.

1 point

Thank you Texas. The Supreme Court is on my last nerve. I don't think they even cracked open a copy of the constitution in their last 4 or 5 so-called "landmark decision". They're just one branch of the Government in the balance of powers, and they've screwed that up, because they are supposed to interpret the constitution and apply it to challenges which are not resolved in the various states. They instead take cases which ARE resolved at the various states and use their personal opinions rather than the U.S. Constitution to muddy things up even more. On top of which, we already have a congress for legislation. Congress makes law. The Court applies it, and clarifies it. Everybody needs to remember what their job is.

1 point

What is an "insignificant" child?

Why should we want to kill anybody?

Odd poll.

1 point

Only before I was even of voting age. I mean I assumed I was they same political affiliation as my parents, grandparents etc.. When I got old enough to vote and make those decisions I found myself quite outside the politics of my family tree. Is this what you mean? No one since has persuaded me one way or another, and I make my decisions, based on research, one election at a time, not being a member of either established party.

1 point

Eventually, the GOP and the DEM will disenfranchise a sufficient number of their own membership that the two major parties will either have to change or fold their tents. This would already happen if their members bothered to read the planks of their parties honestly, and consider all that their party expects them to accept by virtue of membership. I'm amazed that we don't already have 4 viable political parties. In any event. There are more "independents" every election cycle. Granted, these "indies" are simply Republicans and Democrats who are at odds with their parties over 1 or 2 issues. Or are tired of insider politics, and life time politicians. I voted for the candidate from the American Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin) during the unbelievably bad choice given us between Barak Obama and John McCain. I got suckered into the party once more in the following cycle to vote for Romney over Obama. So, my vote had no effect either way. When I voted my heart, my candidate didn't win. When I voted a major party, my candidate didn't win. What I want to vote for is American conservatism, in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Strong leadership, a vigorous economy, Sane foreign policy, and laws which are moral, and just. Better appointments for the Supreme Court. In the USA, we don't get these things from either the Democrats or the Republicans in their current states because they have become to large, to institutional and too cocky. Even though they use rhetoric during their campaigns and build smoke screens, in the final analysis, you couldn't fit a playing card in between the candidates actually nominated to represent the DEM and the GOP. They they just hate on each other for another 4 years, until we have another worthless election with milktoast candidates lacking hormones or human traits of any kind lest somebody get offended and they don't get elected.

Anyway, unless one the parties gave us real candidates we could sink our teeth into and really get behind. Another Lincoln or Reagan, or Roosevelt, or Ike, or Kennedy, then we're stuck with a bunch of Bush's and Clintons, and we're just one big glop of worthlessness in our leadership and politics.

By all means we should feel good about voting outside of the 2 parties. If it doesn't have an effect for a few cycles, so be it. At least you can sleep better knowing that you didn't have any part of the guy or gal the party forced down your throat. Eventually, people will catch on, and a strong willed outsider will get the job over the Dems and Pubs, and they the parties will either change to the will of the people, or they will disappear over time like the Whigs.

There's no wrong answer. I like what's happening in the GOP right now. They're starting to figure it out. The top three candidates are NOT politicians. We'll see what happens.

The top candidate in the DEMS, at least in NH and Iowa, is Socialist Bernie Sanders, so maybe the DEMS are starting to feel the strain as well. So eventually, maybe 3rd and 4th parties won't be necessary to get the attention of the major parties, but in the mean time, you don't lose anything. I promise that no matter what your leanings, whether Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton is president makes little or no difference whatsoever. So fight on. Be independent. Vote other parties. Vote for who YOU BELIEVE IN. Candidates that really resonates with you and your particular needs and wants out of this country for you and your family. Do real research. Listen to debates. Find the right candidate for you, no matter what party they are in or not in, and support them with all you've got. Tell your detractors this.

If we always do what we always did, we'll always get what we always got.

Just my 2 cents.



1 point

The idea that a fetus is a human being, while you may be correct that there is some miniscule fragments of contention still lingering, they are contending a fiction by emotion. It is quite resolved, settled science that a human being is formed at conception. The question, then is whether or not a woman has a "right" granted by ?_? to end the development of the human life to full potential by contracting for the killing of her own child. This "right" would not be granted by God, who is the genesis of life, so it can come only from a secular body, removing the baby from the realms of both biology and theology, and placing the baby at the mercy of 20th century western politics and civics. On it's face, this hardly seems the proper arbiter for matters as important as the nurturing of human life.

Regarding your second paragraph, you're referring to a "quasi-concession" that the taking of human life be allowed in some instances. I've been gone for a while, and will have to re-read my original premise to see what exactly I said, but I can guess I was willing, as a STARTING point, and for political reasons to put those who advocate for abortion on demand to a test. When pressed in the political arena, even the most hard core abortion advocates come up with the challenges "What about in the instance of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother". Well of course, in the instance of rape, it would not be right. It is simply adding violence to violence. The innocent child did not commit a crime, and deserves the right to live. Same with incest. As regards "saving the life of the mother", this is I think what the call a "straw man" argument. That is disingenuous. First because it is so rare, and second, this potential doctor/surgeon is supposed to do all he/she can to save the lives of the mother AND her baby. Sometimes in the course of efforts to do so, the baby would die. But this is a secondary effect, and not the INTENTION of an ethical doctor. So that instance doesn't really belong in the argument.

You are correct that abortion is wrong in every instance. My false willingness to allow (for political reasons ONLY), the rape/incest idea, is actually intended only to make a point. When presented with this offer or idea, the political parties who are in favor of abortion, who use this argument to keep abortion legal, would still not actually put an abortion restriction law into practice if given a chance. It's just something they say to themselves to make themselves not feel like monsters for fighting for abortion rights.

No. I am not personally in favor of ANY procured abortion happening. But law is only a part of this. Hearts must change. So perhaps if you COULD get people to go for an abortion ban with the 2 exceptions, it would be enough of a start, that down the road, as the facts about human life and development became more commonly known, it would then be politically possible to lose he exceptions as well, over time. Meanwhile, a law allowing only for those exceptions will successfully put an end to 99% of abortions, and they would then indeed be quite rare as a procedure.

1 point

This is one of the saddest things about the whole mess. The civil legality of this horror has over time dulled the cultural psyche to the sanctity of all human life. I wish I knew the answer. How to bring the cultural conscience back to sanity, and more importantly to love.

stevetc(65) Clarified
1 point

Yes. It is still murder. And no, I don't personally condone the exceptions. I am being conciliatory. I'll take what I can get. If the pro-aborts would really concede to no abortion save for those few exceptions which they wish to keep it legal for, then we're more than 99 percent on the road to restoring the sense of the sanctify of human life. But, I think the "exceptions" are disingenuous rote learned talking points used to assuage the conscience of the pro-aborts, and to keep the whole shebang legal.

1 point

No. It should not be legal to seek and procure abortion. It is barbaric. It's contract murder.

There are some rare exceptions, which account for less than 1% of all abortions which are performed. (rape, incest, save life of mother). These are not valid reasons to murder a child either, but could be considered on a case by case basis, as they occur, in an environment where procured abortion is NOT legal.

Stevetc has not yet created any debates.

About Me

"Believer in common sense and Jesus Christ, THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life."

Biographical Information
Name: Steve Roehr
Gender: Male
Age: 67
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Postal Code: 89032
Religion: Catholic
Education: Some College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here