Debate reaction, anyone change any of their previous opinions?

Hear anything new and exciting that made you change your mind, clarified, etc?

Did the squiggly lines change your mind for you?

Angry faces highlights

Dingy wrote:

lol that's making me dizzy -.-

LMAO. That is funny.

Debate didn't change my mind. I do have to say that McCain's Health care plan is really poorly thought out/researched. $5k insurance credit?? We pay $232 a month for our health care through Mike's employer, and the employer pays $600/month. So pretty much $10k/year. How does he expect people to get a "Good" family health care plan for $5,000?

Also, all I kept hearing coming out of McCain's mouth was attack after attack. Seemed he was more concerned with that rather than the important issues. I know he was facing pressure from his supporters to do so, but I think I could safely say the American people would rather listen about the crucial issues (such as the economy, health care, and education) and what the candidates planned on doing about it.

Some say McCain won the debate, others say Obama. I think it was a draw. Mainly because we've heard everything they said in last night's debate in their previous debates. A few differences here and there but really not much was different.

I think most American's would prefer a calm, cool-headed leader (Obama) over and erratic, indecisive one (McCain).

Just my 2 cents.

Quote :

I think most American's would prefer a calm, cool-headed leader (Obama) over and erratic, indecisive one (McCain).

I disagree. I think most Americans don't trust him. He has been caught in too many lies and half truths. Not only that, but only someone who is actually looking for something to hate about McCain could call him erratic or indecisive. The guy isn't the best guy for president, clearly, but i think he is by far the more honest of the two.

Like last night when McCain brought up redistribution of wealth. That is exactly what Obama's tax plan is. No offense to anyone who wants a tax break, but it is redistribution of the wealth, which is socialism 101. First make everyone equal regardless of ability.

I wont go so far as to say the guy doesn't understand economics, but if you tax anyone making over 200,000 a year, those people aren't going to just smile and go "ok, no problem." They are going to turn right around and raise prices on their products, cut someones salary, or fire someone. They will not just shrug it off.

The net result is that unemployment goes up, prices go up, and that nifty tax break you get means exactly jack squat because you are now paying the difference to live the same lifestyle you had before. The only way it's actually a tax cut is if you start living below where you were before. Move into a cheaper house, eat less, etc. How many of us want to actually do that?

It's exactly the same thing as when minimum wage goes up. Don't get me wrong, I worked minimum wage jobs for good long time and i loved it when it went up, but once you understand the consequences of that, you start to see how its a bad thing. One thing effects another which effects another. These are not just random number slides you can shift up and down. Everything is connected.

People who think that redistribution of the wealth and higher minimum wage are good things, often times have not thought it through, and the rest of the time they know very well what the consequences will be, they are just too stubborn to admit it because they want to be right. I'm sorry to offend, but that's how the world works and no amount of shouting "Change!" will actually change it.

If you call pointing out being associated to known terrorists attacking someone, then yea, I guess you're right. But if you hang around with known terrorists, you kinda deserve to be attacked.

Squib wrote:

If you call pointing out being associated to known terrorists attacking someone, then yea, I guess you're right. But if you hang around with known terrorists, you kinda deserve to be attacked.

Kinda like the the Bush family..

Nonetheless... It doesnt matter who wins because the ppl voting will not be satisfied..

In a year or sooner the same ppl wanting Obama/Mccain in will be the same ppl whining and crying about how they were lied too...

And Mccain isnt more honest than Obama.... If people believe that.. there truly is no hope for america

But then again.. If Mccain gets in office maybe they will pass the law where Everyone that gets raped has to pay for their own rape kit like they tried to do in Alaska.. See if that lowers the Rape crime rate eh?

[quote="Kade"]

Quote :

I wont go so far as to say the guy doesn't understand economics, but if you tax anyone making over 200,000 a year, those people aren't going to just smile and go "ok, no problem." They are going to turn right around and raise prices on their products, cut someones salary, or fire someone. They will not just shrug it off.

Just for clarity, I believe it is 250,000 Net per year.

I believe if you make over 200,000 Net per year you will not see a raise or a drop in your tax.

The latter part of what you say is likely true, but perhaps there are some out there who will accept taking on additional tax increase to reduce the pressure on the middle class.

His health plan sounds atrocious though, and what is the bit with taking your business for health insurance across state lines? I mean, shit I can do it here near Kansas City, but what about someone living in Austin or Witchita? Are they going to drive 8 hours somewhere to get across state lines and look for health care? Sounds absurd to me.

Quote :

but only someone who is actually looking for something to hate about McCain could call him erratic or indecisive.

Nope wrong. Don't hate McCain at all. I respect both candidates and I do have a high respect for McCain for his military service. I come from a family with many who served, aunts, uncles, my grandfather, my husband, not to mention many friends. McCain has flip flopped on many of his statements and that is where I based my opinion of that from. So to say that I am just looking for a reason to hate him is absurd and unfounded.

I agree and disagree with both candidates on different issues. You mentioned McCain's tax break. Let me say I would lean more towards him on this idea IF the tax break for the big corporations was based on providing/creating better paying jobs here in America. We must stop shipping all of our jobs overseas.

Some other issues I don't agree with McCain are:

Roe V. Wade - McCain wants this over-turned. I am pro-choice. Do we really want to go back to back alley abortions and have women dying like before? To me and many others this is a PERSONAL choice. It should not be controlled by government and/or religious beliefs.

Nuclear power: Both candidates have mentioned the use of nuclear power. But from what I've seen is McCain is adamant on making this the main source for new energy. I think we have many options other than this and this shouldn't be the mainstay of energy for our future.

Health Care : I mentioned this before to put it bluntly, his plan for health care sucks. Poorly thought out, and insufficient.

I don't want to make this a huge wall of text so I will just end here before I end up typing all day.

Jinxes wrote:

I agree and disagree with both candidates on different issues. You mentioned McCain's tax break. Let me say I would lean more towards him on this idea IF the tax break for the big corporations was based on providing/creating better paying jobs here in America. We must stop shipping all of our jobs overseas.

Thats not his tax plan at all. He basically gives -everyone- a tax cut. Liberals keep making it sound like he is going around handing out million dollar bills to people like bill gates. Tax cuts are based on percentage. if you get a 1% tax cut, the common guy might see a few hundred bucks off his taxes where as the millionaire might see a few million off his taxes.

Thats not giving tax breaks to the wealthy as opposed to the middle class, that's giving everyone equally a tax cut.


Other the other side, Obama wants to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. That's socialism guys, that's the start of it anyway. Everything i said in my previous post will happen if you do that. What happened to the poor people of Nottingham when robin hood started taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? That's right, the sheriff sent men out to collect more money, then started shaking people down. Now robin hood was hailed as a hero, but had people thought about it for half a second they would have turned his ass in because he made their lives worse! Had they had any intellegence, they would have risen up and taken down the sheriff, robin hood, and then formed their own capitalistic society based on trade and value for value.

Quote :

Some other issues I don't agree with McCain are:

Roe V. Wade - McCain wants this over-turned. I am pro-choice. Do we really want to go back to back alley abortions and have women dying like before? To me and many others this is a PERSONAL choice. It should not be controlled by government and/or religious beliefs.

McCain wants this decision to reside with the states, not with the federal government. That in no way translates into back alley abortions and women dieing.

For that matter it should be like gay marriage. It should be, and is a state issue. Not a federal issue.

We are a republic, Not a democracy. The state governments should hold ultimate power over the workings in their state. The federal government is too far removed from the problems they try to legislate and it is ineffective. State governments should have the power. Period.

Quote :

Nuclear power: Both candidates have mentioned the use of nuclear power. But from what I've seen is McCain is adamant on making this the main source for new energy. I think we have many options other than this and this shouldn't be the mainstay of energy for our future.

Why does it scare people so much? Ok yea, i wouldn't want to live next to one, but its really the safest form of energy production out there.

Quote :

Health Care : I mentioned this before to put it bluntly, his plan for health care sucks. Poorly thought out, and insufficient.
I don't want to make this a huge wall of text so I will just end here before I end up typing all day.

Granted, i hate his health care system, its retarded and i think he was forced to come up with one to combat Obamas. Im not happy with it and i would be shocked if it actually happens.




I don't mean to pick on you, but i get carried away.

Quote :

McCain wants this decision to reside with the states, not with the federal government. That in no way translates into back alley abortions and women dieing.

Don't agree with this being a state decision sorry, every woman across the country should have the same right to choose.

Quote :

State governments should have the power. Period.

Not all agree with your opinion. Period.

I don't think it's right either that gays can only be married in certain states. Not too long ago on the news I remember seeing a lesbian couple, can't remember where they are from, who went to California to be married and their state was trying to prosecute them for doing so because it wasn't legal in the state they reside in.

I don't know call me a crazy liberal! I for one believe in equality. I do not like segregation, this is the America right? Land of the Free? Ha, <-- that made me laugh.

Onward! Ok as for nuclear plants we still have not come up with a viable way to take care of the nuclear waste. It just sits in storage. Many old shut down plants have their waste just sitting there because we have no idea how to safely discard it. If they could fix this problem I might be more open to it. I just wish we would start being more open to renewable energy, instead of just talking about it. Certain countries are way ahead of us in this aspect.

Also as for Obama's tax plan, I recall him stating that there would be tax breaks for companies who keep their business here in the USA instead of shipping it overseas. I'll have to look it up, but I'm sure I remember that.

Anyway we all have our own opinions, neither one of the candidates is completely right or completely wrong. For me Obama is the way to go.

[quote="Kade"]

Quote :

I think most American's would prefer a calm, cool-headed leader (Obama) over and erratic, indecisive one (McCain).

I disagree. I think most Americans don't trust him.

Polls suggest otherwise. Furthermore, you can't make an intuitive, anecdotal assertion and call it fact. period.

Quote :

Like last night when McCain brought up redistribution of wealth. That is exactly what Obama's tax plan is. No offense to anyone who wants a tax break, but it is redistribution of the wealth, which is socialism 101. First make everyone equal regardless of ability.

I wont go so far as to say the guy doesn't understand economics, but if you tax anyone making over 200,000 a year, those people aren't going to just smile and go "ok, no problem." They are going to turn right around and raise prices on their products, cut someones salary, or fire someone. They will not just shrug it off.

The net result is that unemployment goes up, prices go up, and that nifty tax break you get means exactly jack squat because you are now paying the difference to live the same lifestyle you had before. The only way it's actually a tax cut is if you start living below where you were before. Move into a cheaper house, eat less, etc. How many of us want to actually do that?

It's exactly the same thing as when minimum wage goes up. Don't get me wrong, I worked minimum wage jobs for good long time and i loved it when it went up, but once you understand the consequences of that, you start to see how its a bad thing. One thing effects another which effects another. These are not just random number slides you can shift up and down. Everything is connected.

People who think that redistribution of the wealth and higher minimum wage are good things, often times have not thought it through, and the rest of the time they know very well what the consequences will be, they are just too stubborn to admit it because they want to be right. I'm sorry to offend, but that's how the world works and no amount of shouting "Change!" will actually change it.

First, you claim that prices will go up. While that MAY be true, and that is a big MAY, they are already going up BECAUSE of stagnant wages, rising fuel costs, inflation, and other financial factors, such as market fear. The empricical data does not support your assertion, PLUS, lower-wage people and middle class people who WILL get a tax cut will be better equipped to pay for things, even if prices do rise.

Second. You make the leap in logic by stating that if an individual who makes 200k+ a year goes up, prices will go up. I'll let this slide because I assume you were referring to companies. If not, go back and re-read. While many individuals file personally as their "company" many also do not, as they work for companies. Thus you cannot claim that Joe Millionaire can raise prices on the products he does not make or lower wages on the employees he doesn't have. That's misleading.

Third, if you have taxes, you have redistribution of wealth, period. I dont care if the low are getting taxed more to funnel savings to the rich of vice versa, you have redistribution of wealth. Socialism does NOT equate to a redistribution of wealth. Socialism would be state ownership of 1)land 2) means of production 3)banking etc. Keynesian economics is what you are referring to. In fact, in a socialist country, like Sweden, everyone pays extremely high taxes so that the state can not only maintain infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewage, electric, etc) but also provide universal health care and other services (amazing mass transit anyone?). I'm often amazed at how many people think raising taxes on the wealthy to benefit the lower on the economic scale equates to socialism. Also, many people have a, I think, unfair view towards socialism. Frankly, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to have the benefits of universal health care (free, mind you) and other amenities. We wonder why Scandinavian states have the highest standard of living in the world, and are often the healthiest. It's no anomaly that it's because of their government structure. Socialism does not mean communism. and even if it did, it would not necessarily be any "communism" that we have seen. Because, in reality, communism has never existed in a state form. You can bring up USSR, CHINA and Cuba (NK too) but you'd be wrong, and I'll happily prove whoever wants to make that argument wrong.

People who argue with nuclear power are people who failed chemistry. Or people who don't know modern technology like they think they do.


I'm an Obama supporter. I'm also a nuclear power supporter. Both candidates suck epic cock.


Oh Canada, bitches

I know ill get flamed for this, as i don't really have a side for this topic as i can see the points of both sides, but....

Roe v Wade. "Its a personal choice"?

Wasn't having sex your personal choice? You had EVERY opportunity to prevent this choice, but you didn't. Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

Now with that said i know theres the argument about rape pregnancies. I believe a woman should be forced to have an abortion if she is pregnant from rape because despite the woman's feelings at the time, when that kid resembles the rapist later in life, there will be issues and the kid will suffer. The problem with this being that it's something you couldn't really enforce. How many selfish people do you think would come to a doctor and lie about being raped to get out of a pregnancy. There's no way to prevent this, except to require a rape test and a rape file being charged.

Now on the other side of the coin i'm somewhat for Roe V Wade because I don't want to be paying for these kids through my taxes because the parents are too stupid, or careless to prevent it from happening in the first place.

A simple amendment to the Roe V Wade argument could possibly change the situation.
If you come in for an abortion, you agree to have your tubes tied. There would be less abortons, but women would still have the right to have an abortion if they so chose. The exception would be rape, but again, how do you enforce that? Perhaps the above solution with the required rape kit test and report.

Vit wrote:

I know ill get flamed for this, as i don't really have a side for this topic as i can see the points of both sides, but....

Roe v Wade. "Its a personal choice"?

Wasn't having sex your personal choice? You had EVERY opportunity to prevent this choice, but you didn't. Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

There are a lot of holes in your logic. First off the only thing that is 100% effective is abstinence, so you are saying women/young women who took precautions, such as either birth control or condoms and still got pregnant should not have a choice in this matter? Before you say well they shouldn't have sex at all if they aren't prepared please!! This is the 21st century, not even priests are abstinent (LOL).

By that logic you might as well say any man who has ever accidentally got a woman pregnant should have to get a vasectomy.
Or that a teenager who might have been unlucky enough to have used a defective condom or have it break should be forced to have her tubes tied if she decided it was in her best interest to have an abortion?

This is a personal matter and if you don't believe in it that is fine, that is YOUR choice. Follow your beliefs and or choices but don't try to push them onto other people. It should be up to the woman what she decides to do with her body.

Another thing is people seem to think that people who are pro-choice think this a a decision to take lightly. Wrong! This is a huge decision for any woman and they should talk to their family/boyfriend/friends/whoever they are close to, before they make such a monumental decision.

There will always be a difference of opinion on this subject for many reasons, whether it be personal morals, religion, or whatever. The point is that the option of choice being there affects no one accept the women who may need or decide to use it.

In regards to nuclear power, I honestly do not know enough about the process, so I won't claim to. However, I do know that it takes LOTS, I mean, LOTS of mining and destruction of lands to obtain uranium. I also know that uranium is only found in certain areas and that LOTS of fossil fuels are spent mining the element, refining it (or w/e) and then transporting it to the proper location. Also, my other main problem is spent nuclear fuel. I dont' care what anyone says, we have yet to figure out a good way to do this. I've always thought we could take a page from a Superman movie, and just like he tossed nuclear missiles at the sun, we too could chuck spent nuclear fuel at the sun. otherwise, I don't like the idea.

What we do need is a comprehensive plan to attack climate change and promote renewable energy. All options must be open for discussion/consideration. Wind, solar, thermal, wave action, etc. The Apollo Program for the 21st Century would be somethign we should consider. This effort could produce millions of "green" jobs.

http://apolloalliance.org/about/
for more info. My office is hosting the President of this organization next week, I'll let you know what he has to say

Jinxes wrote:

Vit wrote:

I know ill get flamed for this, as i don't really have a side for this topic as i can see the points of both sides, but....

Roe v Wade. "Its a personal choice"?

Wasn't having sex your personal choice? You had EVERY opportunity to prevent this choice, but you didn't. Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

There are a lot of holes in your logic. First off the only thing that is 100% effective is abstinence, so you are saying women/young women who took precautions, such as either birth control or condoms and still got pregnant should not have a choice in this matter? Before you say well they shouldn't have sex at all if they aren't prepared please!! This is the 21st century, not even priests are abstinent (LOL).

By that logic you might as well say any man who has ever accidentally got a woman pregnant should have to get a vasectomy.
Or that a teenager who might have been unlucky enough to have used a defective condom or have it break should be forced to have her tubes tied if she decided it was in her best interest to have an abortion?

This is a personal matter and if you don't believe in it that is fine, that is YOUR choice. Follow your beliefs and or choices but don't try to push them onto other people. It should be up to the woman what she decides to do with her body.

Another thing is people seem to think that people who are pro-choice think this a a decision to take lightly. Wrong! This is a huge decision for any woman and they should talk to their family/boyfriend/friends/whoever they are close to, before they make such a monumental decision.

There will always be a difference of opinion on this subject for many reasons, whether it be personal morals, religion, or whatever. The point is that the option of choice being there affects no one accept the women who may need or decide to use it.

I'm in agreement with you here. Also, somethign that REALLY pisses me off (see, I used caps) is when people, like McCain, refer to people who are pro-choice as "pro-abortion". as if people enjoy going around killing fetuses. so stupid. I mean, yeah, sure..I enjoy killing babies, but not EVERYONE does.

Right, you can poke holes in my theories all you like, but Anything we do at this point is doing nothing but patch work.


You want to know what i really believe?



I don't believe that Gay Marriage or Marriage for that matter should have anything to do with the government. It should be a religious decision and that decision should rest with the Church issuing the marriage liscence.

I don't believe in publics schools ether, so anything i say on education is going to be horribly messed up.

I don't believe in taxes period. The only reason this nation has tax code was for a time of war. The problem was that the Government got all happy in the pants after the first war and kept the taxes going.

I don't believe that a woman's right to choose should include the right to take a life. That's just me. You can argue all day long about rape and the destruction of a young woman's life and there should be provision for things like rape, but over all, by and large, i can not as a moral christian human being condone the killing of innocent life.

Having said that, it should be a state issue not a federal issue. The state is the one that issues the medical license, it should be the state that decides whether the practice is legal or not, and if your state doesn't condone it, then hop on a bus and go to another one. It is just one more thing that the Federal government doesn't need to be involved with.

The Federal government should be for one thing and one thing alone. Protection of the states from outside governments. They should run the government, and the basic laws that keep us a nation. They should have NOTHING to do with any state issue. If it happens within state lines, and is not against the over all constitution, the federal government should have NOTHING to do with it.


As far as the taxes go, redistribution of the wealth, like Obama is talking about is the - first step - to socialism. The government is at this moment holding combat troops in reserve ready for deployment on united states soil should things get out of hand. Not only that but they are getting ready to buy out the banks that are in trouble in an attempt to stabilize things. Now if that doesn't worry you and make you think socialism is right around the corner then nothing will.

Communism has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Plain and simple, state form communism or not, and while socialism may not be communism, if you want to head down that path, then Obama is your guy. Kudos, but i won't stand for it, and nor will any of my line while i draw breath. This country is brilliant in conception. Free market trade and the ONLY reason it is having so many problems right now is because the government keeps trying to gather more and more power to its self taking us closer to communism and socialism. That is not how this country was designed, and it should not be where we end up.

Any time in history when you take the shackles of taxes and regulation off the human race, we thrive. We thrive brilliantly. Anytime you put an all powerful government in charge of everything, we end up with revolution, war, and poverty.

Jinxes wrote:

Vit wrote:

I know ill get flamed for this, as i don't really have a side for this topic as i can see the points of both sides, but....

Roe v Wade. "Its a personal choice"?

Wasn't having sex your personal choice? You had EVERY opportunity to prevent this choice, but you didn't. Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

There are a lot of holes in your logic. First off the only thing that is 100% effective is abstinence, so you are saying women/young women who took precautions, such as either birth control or condoms and still got pregnant should not have a choice in this matter? Before you say well they shouldn't have sex at all if they aren't prepared please!! This is the 21st century, not even priests are abstinent (LOL).

Birth control OR condoms. Can't use both? Also, a condom breaks, or falls off. Never heard of the morning after pill, plan b?(No it isnt an abortion pill)

Abstinence? Sure that'd be great, then tax payers wouldn't have to support tons of welfare cases and food stamp programs.

This is the 21st Century isn't a valid point for your argument. If there were serious consequences in our society, things wouldn't dissolve into a blanket statement such as "lawl, this is the 21st century, what do you expect?"

Quote :

By that logic you might as well say any man who has ever accidentally got a woman pregnant should have to get a vasectomy.

I fully support this, except they need to make it permanent.

Quote :

This is a personal matter and if you don't believe in it that is fine, that is YOUR choice. Follow your beliefs and or choices but don't try to push them onto other people. It should be up to the woman what she decides to do with her body.

I agree, it's a personal matter. Where did i ever try to push them onto anyone else? Please enlighten me. I stated my opinion, it isn't a law, so it isnt FORCING anyone to do anything. Please leave the sensationalism at the door.

Quote :

The point is that the option of choice being there affects no one accept the women who may need or decide to use it.

It affects nobody, but the woman right? How about the guy that got the girl pregnant? He has no say, even though it's half him? It takes two to make a kid, yet the choice is all the woman's? Seems a bit short sighted. What about the kids choice, the Grandparents for both families.

I'd like to take a second to deal with semantics. It's often referred to as anti-abortion if you take a stand against the subject, but it's "pro-choice" if you're for it. Pro-choice is FOR abortion. Stop arguing semantics. You aren't arguing about whether or not you have a choice as there are other choices like adoption, you're arguing about a specific choice, which IS abortion. You are arguing for abortion, and the opposite side is arguing against. This topic wouldn't even exist if they weren't debating the same topic.

Also, there are OTHER choices besides abortion. What about adoption. There's a "pro-choice" topic for you to argue for. Why doesnt this side of the aisle argue FOR that?

Kade, I guess we agree to disagree. I think the only thing I actually come close to you on is the gay marriage thing, although, it's not a solid agreement on that one

At least we agree that this game is pretty decent eh? lol

i dont know man, im kinda worried your going to stab me in my sleep.

Vit wrote:

Birth control OR condoms. Can't use both? Also, a condom breaks, or falls off. Never heard of the morning after pill, plan b?(No it isnt an abortion pill)

From my experience most against abortion disagree.

Quote :

Abstinence? Sure that'd be great, then tax payers wouldn't have to support tons of welfare cases and food stamp programs.

This is the 21st Century isn't a valid point for your argument. If there were serious consequences in our society, things wouldn't dissolve into a blanket statement such as "lawl, this is the 21st century, what do you expect?"

The point was that it is really no longer viewed/believed that you must be married and/or be intending to procreate to have sex by the majority of people. So, you are basically saying that unless your intent is to procreate than no one should enact in intercourse. I call bullshit on that.

Quote :

This is a personal matter and if you don't believe in it that is fine, that is YOUR choice. Follow your beliefs and or choices but don't try to push them onto other people. It should be up to the woman what she decides to do with her body.

I agree, it's a personal matter. Where did i ever try to push them onto anyone else? Please enlighten me. I stated my opinion, it isn't a law, so it isnt FORCING anyone to do anything. Please leave the sensationalism at the door.

Quote :

Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

Hmm to me that translates to, you have no right to have a choice.

Quote :

It affects nobody, but the woman right? How about the guy that got the girl pregnant? He has no say, even though it's half him? It takes two to make a kid, yet the choice is all the woman's? Seems a bit short sighted. What about the kids choice, the Grandparents for both families.

Wow did you even read my entire post? I guess I'll re-post it in BOLD so you can see it :

Another thing is people seem to think that people who are pro-choice think this a a decision to take lightly. Wrong! This is a huge decision for any woman and they should talk to their family/boyfriend/friends/whoever they are close to, before they make such a monumental decision.

Quote :

I'd like to take a second to deal with semantics. It's often referred to as anti-abortion if you take a stand against the subject, but it's "pro-choice" if you're for it. Pro-choice is FOR abortion. Stop arguing semantics. You aren't arguing about whether or not you have a choice as there are other choices like adoption, you're arguing about a specific choice, which IS abortion. You are arguing for abortion, and the opposite side is arguing against. This topic wouldn't even exist if they weren't debating the same topic.

Also, there are OTHER choices besides abortion. What about adoption. There's a "pro-choice" topic for you to argue for. Why doesnt this side of the aisle argue FOR that?

pro-choice:

advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)

In the end it should be the woman's right to control her own body whether it be to keep the baby, have an abortion, or choose adoption. The whole point is choice.
People who are pro-choice believe that a woman should have a right to choose, not that they themselves would do it and/or condone it.

pro-life:
adj. Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.

Like I also said before this will always be a difference in opinion on the matter because of personal morals/religion etc...

***EDIT*** Disclaimer: this is the only issue I get militant about sorry if I offend anyone

Vit wrote:

Birth control OR condoms. Can't use both? Also, a condom breaks, or falls off. Never heard of the morning after pill, plan b?(No it isnt an abortion pill)

Right, because accidents never happen, people are perfect, and if an accident does happen, the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term. Sorry but no thank you. This is my body, it's my choice. Taking away that simple right opens the door to eliminating other rights for women, which is the heart of Roe v. Wade. I personally don't want to go back to a time when it was illegal for women to use birth control, work outside the home, or to a time when we were considered our husband's property outright.

Jinxes wrote:

The point was that it is really no longer viewed/believed that you must be married and/or be intending to procreate to have sex by the majority of people. So, you are basically saying that unless your intent is to procreate than no one should enact in intercourse. I call bullshit on that.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Quote :

Who gives you the right to erase your mistake?

I do. I'm an atheist, I am beholden to no God. If I make a mistake and I have the power to fix it, that's my right. Especially if it involves my body and my life. For me, a baby is not a miracle from god but a process of science. I'm not saying the choice should ever be made lightly, but I am the sovereign of my own flesh.

Quote :

It affects nobody, but the woman right? How about the guy that got the girl pregnant? He has no say, even though it's half him? It takes two to make a kid, yet the choice is all the woman's? Seems a bit short sighted. What about the kids choice, the Grandparents for both families.

On the flip side. Let's imagine, if you will, a family who believes the only path for women is be a house-wife and have babies. Would you put it past the husband or grandparents to sabotage the birth control? That would essentially be eliminating the wife's choice, by using said birth control, to NOT have babies. Interesting how that works. Take Roe away, and women like that will be trapped. Abusive relationships are about control, and taking away a woman's basic right to control her body drastically tips the scales against her.


On another note, what you're saying is that it should be mandatory to have compulsory spay and neuter for people who make mistakes getting pregnant. That would mean animals have more rights to breed than humans. Not that I don't want mandated spay and neuter policies for animals, I do. Do you know we kill hundreds of millions of unwanted companion animals every year in this country? If you want to talk about innocent life suffering, lets not forget to include all forms of life. And while a fetus is killed before it has the capacity to understand it's even alive, our companion animals are generally full grown and are lead to their fate aware of their own survival, frightened, and alone.

Ravey wrote:

On another note, what you're saying is that it should be mandatory to have compulsory spay and neuter for people who make mistakes getting pregnant. That would mean animals have more rights to breed than humans. Not that I don't want mandated spay and neuter policies for animals, I do. Do you know we kill hundreds of millions of unwanted companion animals every year in this country? If you want to talk about innocent life suffering, lets not forget to include all forms of life. And while a fetus is killed before it has the capacity to understand it's even alive, our companion animals are generally full grown and are lead to their fate aware of their own survival, frightened, and alone.

I <3 you Ravey.

Kade wrote:

i dont know man, im kinda worried your going to stab me in my sleep.

If I ever did stab you in your sleep, it wouldn't be with a knife