If You Were a Single Issue Voter, What Would Your Single Issue Be?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
But neither is a fetus/baby. But you care GREATLY about them, even when they are microscopic. You clearly care more about them than "foster kids", who are ACTUALLY LIVING ON EARTH, and are not truly loved. That's my point. I think it is backwards to be so adamant about saving the life of a fetus that the mom doesn't care about, over the lives of children, who aren't cared about or for, and again, are already walking around. Take care of all the starving and unloved kids already on this planet before you demand that every fetus/baby be born...and then not loved.
So a person's humanity is determined by if someone loves them or not? I think you have a rather poor definition of what makes a person human. Switching to personal attacks and pretending like I do nothing to help those in need does not substantiate a good argument for abortion. The only argument you have there is that their mom's don't love them, which last time I checked is NOT what makes a person human.
I do take care of the lives of born people outside of my family with time and money. Just because I havn't done it in your approved way doesn't mean I'm doing nothing. My involvement with my wife's work for example has gone far beyond my wife simply working for them.
You haven't changed. Making crap up. I didn't say unloved kids weren't human and you know it. My argument remains that you care much more about fetuses than kids that are walking around on earth. Pretty simple. Fight as hard as you can for the world's millions of starving and suffering children, and THEN focus on taking away a woman's right to her own body. You just remain backwards in your thinking. You are wasting your vote fighting against something that is LEGAL...and should remain that way.
I havn't changed. . . wait I'm suppose to change? Why do you and Fred keep saying that as though I am suppose to change? Did I promise that I would change? I recall making no such promises. Did the world somehow give you the authority to order me to change? I didn't get that memo I'm quite happy with who I am. I only tend to change the things I'm unhappy with and I'm quite happy with opposing a genocidal practice that is conducted nearly always for convenience. I'm also quite happy with demanding that the richest country in the world feed all it's citizens and provide them healthcare too.
Again your arguments are ridiculous. You are not defending the actual practice of abortion, merely pointing out that since there is suffering elsewhere in the world abortion is ok.
It's like a slave master in 1855 saying that before you can try to take his slaves and make them free you should make sure that all the African tribes are well fed. Or Stalin telling people that you shouldn't complain about his gulags because arn't there suffering people elsewhere in the world?
You basically try to tell me that my view on abortion is invalid because I havn't yet ended all of the world's suffering. I'm pretty sure that ending all of the world's suffering would be impossible for me to do alone. If you know of a way that I could do that all by myself please let me know I'd give all that I have, my own life if necessary if it could be accomplished. (However seeming as how giving my life would cause my own wife and children to suffer I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work.)
How about actually defending the actual practice of abortion, the taking of the life of a creature with human DNA that has a functioning brain and beating heart? One that is capable of hearing and remembering voices from inside the womb. Try defending that practice, not logical fallacies of, there are starving kids someplace in the world therefore abortion is valid.
Last edited:
Wow you really don't defend anything you believe in do you? You won't even explain why the analogy is bad, you just say it is.
You just launch personal attacks while knowing nothing about me other then my political views and that I have a wife and 3 kids and note that I havn't changed as though I either promised you I would or you have the authority from somewhere to order me to do so.
How is this a defense of anything?
Unless you think you are a Russian czar and everyone should just accept what you say without question this makes no sense.
In the real world here just saying some stuff and making personal attacks doesn't qualify as an argument.
Fetuses are more important than children already here, more important that a woman's right to her own body...that's what you're saying. I get it. You aren't a bad guy...just backwards in your fight. Have a nice day.
There we go, at least something that makes some sense that can be responded to.
No fetuses are not more important then children already here but they are just as important. They are children too. Their geography doesn't change what they are.
And yes they are more important then a woman's "right to her own body". The right to life supercedes one's right to certain medical decisions. Just like the right of the child to be supported supercedes one's right to "do what they want with their own property"
I can't decide that my 2 year old is costing me too much money and is too much of a pain in the rear so I'm gonna kick him out of the house. Or do you think I should have the right to choose what I do with my money, house, and food? No one questions that my children's right to life supercedes certain rights to do what I want with my own property, money, time, etc. Because my children's right to life in effect orders me under penalty of child neglect charges to care for them in a reasonable manner. If I fail to give my child proper shelter or food or clothing then I can go to prison for that. IT IS A CRIME... And if the child dies as a result of my neglect it's a crime that can put you in prison for life.
There is plenty of precedent for the right to life of children supercedeing other rights their parents may have.
The right to life super-cedes all other rights as far as I'm concerned. Even the right to religious freedom which you know that I hold highly. However I don't think that gives a person the right to deny life saving medical treatment to their children.
I just find anti-choice people, like yourself, nowhere nearly as passionate for the unwanted children already on the planet as you are for the unborn. If you were, there would be far more threads about child abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, and starving or homeless children. But there aren't. It makes no sense.
I find this absurd, which is why we are on opposing sides of the issue. Just in biology alone it is false, and I'm not even intelligently informed in biology. Maybe you are talking about 20+week feti, but you label it as a fetus, which I understand to be after first trimester, which is 11 weeks. Believing that an 11 week fetus is directly equatable to a walking around child just seems absurd to me. Going beyond biology, it is simply the emotional attachment. Sure one can have an emotional attachment to the fetus, no doubt, but to claim it is the same attachment one would have to a fully-birthed and lived child? Come on.
You can acknowledge there is a difference between fetus/child without surrendering your other points and overall position on the issue.
Have you noted my distaste for Republicans who don't wish to provide people food or healthcare because it might cost a little bit more on my taxes??
Have you noted my support for tougher gun control measures?? Or my support for government funded adoptions?
I mean the above reasons are the reasons I don't know who to vote for because I can't support most dems because of the abortion issue (although I'm proud to vote for my state senator who's a pro-life dem) and I can't support Republicans because they think starving kids should just starve because their parents havn't pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
Beyond that again the thread argument makes no sense... Why arn't there more threads about people shooting other people?
For the most part none of these things are controversial. . . What's the point of a threat about it? Do we need a poll to determine that pretty much everyone here thinks shooting someone in the face because you are mad at them is wrong??? Or if you want to use your topics do we need a poll to establish that most people here think child abuse is wrong?
I mean by all means if someone has a revolutionary or new idea on how to prevent child abuse then bring it up so it can be discussed. Or if you can find a few people on here who actually in all seriousness support child abuse then we could have a debate about the merits of child abuse. But it's not actually a debate when no one actually supports it and it's just sort of pointless if no one supports it and doesn't have a new idea on how to prevent it.
Actually it's after 8 weeks that it's called a fetus. Not that it matters because abortion is legal up to 24 weeks. I don't care how rare it is after a certain point. . . It's still legal in this country to do.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/wo...-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus
What is absurd IMO is your argument is that emotional attachment is what defines if one is alive or not. Seriously what does emotional attachment have to do with anything?
There are born people walking the world now who have no one who is emotionally attached to them on an individual level. Does that take away their right to life?
This is what IMO should disturb you about abortion. Think about it in order to defend abortion you've reverted to a callous idea that the value of one's life is based on other people having an individual emotional attachment to you. Would you use a similar argument about the value of a homeless person's life? What about the lives of the people my wife takes care of?? Many (but not all) have had their families drop them off at the group home and then are never seen or heard from again.
Several of these guys have living families who never call or even write an E-mail to them. Because of their disability sadly many of their families have no emotional attachment to them and the closest thing they have to emotional attachment is the people they live with and the employees who work to take care of them occasionally feeling sorry for them and buying them a Christmas present because no one else will.
Last edited:
Unfortunately strengthening the military will increase the national debt, since it is by far our largest area of spending. Unless we increase revenue first, and I'm not sure any way of doing that will fly with our current constituents.
Kiting......in my defense, You could not be more incorrect about what you think I am thinking.
Well...it there would be a little less child abuse and unloved/starving children if there were more abortion. Personally, I think there are WAY WAY too many people having babies that shouldn't be having them. There aren't people out there to adopt these kids either. You and I are on the same page of many other issues. I am for abortion and think it should be retroactive. More unwanted/unloved babies aren't helping things in this country. They are growing up as angry adults who do bad things, far too often. I got blasted a couple of years ago when I said I saw one of my former students, 14 at the time, pregnant. I knew that child would have no chance. The mother was a disrespectful child who had about zero chance of making it in life, and the same would be for the kid. Well, she got arrested AGAIN yesterday. No way that baby should have been born. I can guarantee it isn't learning how to be a productive member of society...just like it's mother.
I have trouble voting R because I know they are trying to take away a woman's right to her own body. I don't side with the crazy religious fanatics either. We just won't agree. You want more babies born and I do not...not ones that people don't want to begin with.
NO, the emotional attachment is NOT what defines whether they are alive or not.
That is what you fail to comprehend. The emotional attachment is important for the decision to follow through with the procedure or not. You said that a 1 year old child (for instance) is the "same" as an 8 week old fetus. I'm not using emotion to prove science, I'm saying it is absurd to think that people will have the same emotional attachment, determinative of their stance on this issue. Scientifically they aren't the same, even your own literature shows that.
Hoosier: The question isn't really whether it is "killing", it is whether it is "murder" as you suggest. That is where emotion lies. Emotion separates little Johnny from Wilbur.
There would be a lot less of both if people maintained the sexual moralities that we had in the past too. Liberals screwed the whole thing up and their fix for their screw up is killing the unborn. This is what many forget, there where not a lot of unwanted children back in the days when people got married and stayed married. Childhood poverty was low as well. But we had to have a sexual revolution and easy divorce and that's what we've gotten.
As far as the child that you are speaking of. . . Why is it that you think you have the right to determine which lives are worth living? Only the ones that are going to "make it in life" are worth living? Based on your premise you aught to support offing the mother.
Ahh but I didn't say that our emotional attachment was the same, I said that they where morally the same.
Human life is human life.
And the issue for the record is if it is human life or not.
Not sure why you brought me up in a response to Tom Paris. It's nice that I have such an impact on you though.
I never asked you to change who you were, just that we didn't need the same tired argument from you on why you're against abortion. We've heard it all before, so unless you have some original argument outside of your hyperbolic genocide rhetoric I didn't feel like getting into an argument with you again over the matter. You're free to have your opinion of the matter regardless of how much in the minority you are and I as well get to have my opinion on the matter. In the end we'll see who comes out on the winning side. I'm not going to lie. I'm pretty confident my way of thinking is more in line with this country than yours.
You also said the words "you havn't changed" as though I was suppose to.
Umm then don't participate?
The fact that my side isn't a majority means very little to me. The majority has clearly not always been right. Since you don't like it when I'm hyperbolic I will trust you will understand what I mean when I say the majority is not always right.
However what the majority believes matters nothing to me. If that mattered, I would be deist and pick between the Republicans and Democrats. Not a Christian who doesn't really fit in well with either party.
I've never been all that concerned about fitting in. . . I learned in Elementary school it's a waste of my time and energy.
When did I tell you to change? Your post was from 8AM this morning. The "Abortion Line" thread didn't get started until this afternoon. Just because I challenge you the most doesn't mean you get to make shit up about things I've said.
I'm happy to have you participate and engage in the conversation IF you come with something new. You never do though. It's the equivalent of OiT discussing politics. We've heard it all before
how are you differentiating emotion from morality?
Do you truly believe there is an objective tablet of morality?
I think this is entirely false propaganda. Children were not better off "back then". They were less educated, less nutritional, less likely to succeed, and died at higher rates.
Marriage and taboo'd sex was not what was holding our fabric of society together.
Bottom line for me in 2016: The Supreme Court.
The next POTUS will likely select at least two, and possibly as many as four, justices. Given that SCOTUS has made so many impactful decisions lately (HC, Citizens, Marriage Equality, etc.) and that we are still dealing with two Reagan-era judges, I am willing to tolerate a less than ideal Executive so long as we are aligned on the next round of court appointees.
The next POTUS will likely select at least two, and possibly as many as four, justices. Given that SCOTUS has made so many impactful decisions lately (HC, Citizens, Marriage Equality, etc.) and that we are still dealing with two Reagan-era judges, I am willing to tolerate a less than ideal Executive so long as we are aligned on the next round of court appointees.
And increased Education, Nutrition, and lower rates of death have absolutely zero to do with people having sex outside of marriage and not getting married or staying married.
Nutrition is actually kind of questionable seeming how people actually ate fruits and veggies then and seeing 8 year olds that weigh 200 pounds was not a common sight.
I don't know about less likely to succeed seems as how a normal person with no college debt could work full time and raise a middle class family on that easily.
I'm not saying everything was better back then. There was also plenty of racism too, I'm not a person who thinks of the '50's as though it was a perfect time in American history. However there where some things that where better. But my point is what there wasn't is a lot of unwanted children. The unwanted children are the direct result of culturally supported sex without marriage and easy "no fault" divorce, both of which can be attributed to liberal social movements.
This is just factually wrong. The past was marked with overflowing orphanages, "shotgun" weddings in which children were born 4 months after a honeymoon, girls taking a year off from school to "live with relatives" or children being raised as "nieces" or "nephews" or pretending to be younger siblings. And we won't even count the illicit abortions, even those that killed/sterilzed the mothers.
The last 50 years has brought all of this out of the shadows, but don't delude yourself that it didn't exist.
Shotgun weddings still took care of the children didn't it? When people got pregnant they got married. All those things you list besides orphanages and illicit abortions (which where not even 10% of the number of legal abortions we have now.) where actually society's way of taking care of the children. Therefore the children where taken care of and loved.
Also the orphanages where probably due to the foster care system either not existing or in it's infancy. Back then private charities handled children in those situations.
