• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-Lifers poll

Pro-Lifers: what else do you support?

  • Against the death penalty.

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Against wars other than wars of pure self-defense.

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Support government helping the weakest amoung us with food, housing, & healthcare.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Total voters
    18
1. For the death penalty.....These people commit horrific crimes against society and deserve to die.

2. For Wars that are justified like WW2 and if we enter a war win it.....Don't cut and run like the left wanted to do in Nam.

3. Support limited welfare that is closely monitored and checked but not a socialist welfare state like Hussein Obama wants
 
Navy Pride said:
2. For Wars that are justified like WW2 and if we enter a war win it.....Don't cut and run like the left wanted to do in Nam.
Click to expand...

But Nam wasn't justified. It was cleaning up France's mess and nothing more. So doesn't that not meet your own qualifications? If a war is not justified, can we cut and run?
 
Ikari said:
But Nam wasn't justified. It was cleaning up France's mess and nothing more. So doesn't that not meet your own qualifications? If a war is not justified, can we cut and run?
Click to expand...

Look at Nam now in fact. Yes, it's a communist hell hole, but how does that negatively affect the US and our security? Our troops and citizens are much safer after leaving Nam than we ever were inside of Nam. There was no rational point behind the war in my opinion.
 
Ikari said:
But Nam wasn't justified. It was cleaning up France's mess and nothing more. So doesn't that not meet your own qualifications? If a war is not justified, can we cut and run?
Click to expand...

Did I say Nam was justified? I believe I said WW2. My point on Nam was if you enter the war win it........58,000 men died for nothing including a couple of my best friends........
 
Thunder said:
or even better, do they support the State taking a way a child if the parent is smoking around the kid?
Click to expand...

Are there many pro-lifers in favor of state intervention for smoking pregnant ladies? I've not really heard that...

Though yes...I have heard people before being in favor of child services potentially being called during the height of the "Second hand smoke" freak out.

do they believe in criminal penalties for a pregnant mother who smokes or drinks?
Click to expand...

See above, though I note you only ask smoking in case one but add drinking here. I would imagine if one drank enough to concievably significantly harm and potentially kill the baby that people would have issues with it (if that's even possible)...but I imagine the same would be true if you were forcing your 8 year old to beer-bong Jack Daniels until they get alcohol poisoning.
 
Navy Pride said:
Did I say Nam was justified? I believe I said WW2. My point on Nam was if you enter the war win it........58,000 men died for nothing including a couple of my best friends........
Click to expand...

Yup, would have been better to stay out of that war.

Your point, BTW, was "For Wars that are justified like WW2 and if we enter a war win it.....Don't cut and run like the left wanted to do in Nam.". Thus this doesn't cover Nam because it was not justified. According to your statement in order to not cut and run, a war must satisfy 2 requirements. It must be justified (like WW II) AND we must enter a war to win it. Which of course suggests that war can be entered into when it is not justified or when we are not intending to win it.

As such, Vietnam does not meet your requirements for not cutting and running as it wasn't a justified war (and one can argue that with all the hamstringing we did to our own military, we were not intending to win it either) and thus cut and run is acceptable.
 
Zyphlin said:
Are there many pro-lifers in favor of state intervention for smoking pregnant ladies? I've not really heard that...

Though yes...I have heard people before being in favor of child services potentially being called during the height of the "Second hand smoke" freak out.



See above, though I note you only ask smoking in case one but add drinking here. I would imagine if one drank enough to concievably significantly harm and potentially kill the baby that people would have issues with it (if that's even possible)...but I imagine the same would be true if you were forcing your 8 year old to beer-bong Jack Daniels until they get alcohol poisoning.
Click to expand...

 
Ikari said:
Yup, would have been better to stay out of that war.

Your point, BTW, was "For Wars that are justified like WW2 and if we enter a war win it.....Don't cut and run like the left wanted to do in Nam.". Thus this doesn't cover Nam because it was not justified. According to your statement in order to not cut and run, a war must satisfy 2 requirements. It must be justified (like WW II) AND we must enter a war to win it. Which of course suggests that war can be entered into when it is not justified or when we are not intending to win it.

As such, Vietnam does not meet your requirements for not cutting and running as it wasn't a justified war (and one can argue that with all the hamstringing we did to our own military, we were not intending to win it either) and thus cut and run is acceptable.
Click to expand...

Domino theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vietnam was a victory. It saved Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India.

Nixon visiting China at the end and taking us off the gold standard was a defeat.
 
Thunder said:
Very simply question for Pro-Lifers:

are you also against the death penalty, wars other than wars of pure self-defense, and do you support the government using all of its resources to help the weakest amoung us?
Click to expand...
This-will-be-the-sixth-time-we-have-created-a-thread-about-it.jpg

Support, support, oppose.
 
-I am very against the death penalty and I believe any pro-lifer who isn't is a hypocrite.
-I have had to fight in 2 unprovoked conflicts/wars (Montenegro, Iraq) and one that was provoked but has gone on too long (Afghanistan), nuff said.
-I have a little trouble with this one. I believe our entitlement programs need to be reformed in a severe way. However, I do not believe we can leave people to bleed out in a ditch either. To keep the response short, I won't get into it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
-I am very against the death penalty and I believe any pro-lifer who isn't is a hypocrite.
-I have had to fight in 2 unprovoked conflicts/wars (Montenegro, Iraq) and one that was provoked but has gone on too long (Afghanistan), nuff said.
-I have a little trouble with this one. I believe our entitlement programs need to be reformed in a severe way. However, I do not believe we can leave people to bleed out in a ditch either. To keep the response short, I won't get into it.
Click to expand...

heh...wow..I agree with everything you said...except Im prolife for the narrowest of reasons...I have to be prolife in good conscience because one of my daughters got pregnant young and I was part of her having one...so I cant justifiably say im against any one else doing the same thing.
I am basically against the death penalty...I do believe there are a few..very few humans that are not worth salvaging...JeffreyDahmers..the Bundies....I like your last sentence the best and that SUMS my feelings up precisely

We need entitlement reform...we need to cut spending...WE dont need more tax cuts and we cant let people suffer that cant take care of themselves....what a delemna huh
 
lpast said:
heh...wow..I agree with everything you said...except Im prolife for the narrowest of reasons...I have to be prolife in good conscience because one of my daughters got pregnant young and I was part of her having one...so I cant justifiably say im against any one else doing the same thing.
I am basically against the death penalty...I do believe there are a few..very few humans that are not worth salvaging...JeffreyDahmers..the Bundies....I like your last sentence the best and that SUMS my feelings up precisely

We need entitlement reform...we need to cut spending...WE dont need more tax cuts and we cant let people suffer that cant take care of themselves....what a delemna huh
Click to expand...

I don't believe we, as human beings, have a right to kill ANYONE. I know most don't agree with that though.
Cutting spending is obviously what we need to do. It wouldn't be hard if politicians would stop pandering to every interest group known to man. Whether it's shrimp running on a tread mill or Pakistani Sesame Street, these are the programs that kill our country. It's like I tell my Marines. Don't think about the action you're about to commit in terms of just you. Think if everyone did what you are doing. Example: If one Marine steals a pack of cigarettes from an Afghani home he's searching, it's no big deal. But what if every Marine in his squad or platoon did it. Then you'd have the village revolt against them. If one politician funds a stupid pet project, it's no big deal. But when you have 100 Senators and 435 Reps all looking for money for a pet project, now you're asking for trouble.
 
Thunder, if NP is the Stan Smith of DP you are the Haley.
 
if we increased welfare and passed FDR's Second Bill of Rights most women would not need to have abortions
(and also make college easier to get into and other CE programs as well)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom