And Gary Johnson doesn't count...

How many homeless kids have you adopted?

Bruh, I'm only 18.
But please continue with your point as if I just said "None".
:)

You should also concern yourself with the millions of homeless children in the world and the millions more that will come with women not being able to chose. I find it hypocritical that people will champion the rights of the unborn while completely ignoring those that are here and unwanted due to the person's decision to give birth then put the child in an orphanage.

I applaud women who don't murder their children and instead go through the pain of putting their children in orphanage. But a woman 'not being able to choose' does not cause homeless children. Are there poor women who get pregnant and they choose to allow a child to live a life in homelessness with a mother instead of death? Yes. If you have a toddler that you can't pay for their food, you don't kill it so it doesn't live homeless...
I am concerned of homeless children. I am concerned for their lives. But their lives are not saved by killing them.

I'm not quite sure what your point is... am I supposed to feel guilt for not being a homeless child, and not taking care of a homeless child? Or guilt for suggesting that we allow homeless children to live, and give THEM a choice, and a chance, to live?

way to end an argument :) very valid points.

Thanks. But I've already learned there is no way to end an argument with NotU. XD

FYI, I am not "arguing", I'm having a discussion and this discussion can end any time you wish. You will not alter my thoughts on the subject nor will I change yours. You're religious therefore stuck in a tunnel of thought that has been put upon you by others. If it makes you happy that's all that matters. I won't reply to any other comments on this thread so now there is a way to "end" this "argument".

Debate, argument, conversation, they're all the same to me.

Forced birthing does and always has caused unwanted children. To be Pro-Life and not also help the unwanted children is hypocritical. It's easy to make someone else do something while they don't have to help those who are forced into something they don't want. Abortion is not murdering children. They are not born and are not children. You nor anyone else can determine if the birth will go to term. Hence why the Supreme Court ruled your definition inaccurate. How about you volunteer at a homeless shelter instead of talking. Forcing your will on someone else with talk is the cheap way out.

Now listen here boi, "forced birthing" is not a thing. The parents chose they potentially wanted a baby before some stuff that shall not be spoken of. "Forced birthing" would be forcing people to do that kind of thing with everyone they met, but NOONE is forcing them to have kids. We're trying to force them to not commit murder on an unborn child. Can't support a kid? Then don't make a decision you'll regret in 9 months.

First, I'm no a "boi" what ever retarded language that is and second, Blah, blah, blah, typical. How many homeless children did you adopt? How much do you donate to orphanages? I bet zero. Not your place to force a birth (yes, making someone have an unwanted baby is a forced birth) and never will be. Don't like it? Supreme Court said too bad and it won't change. You also need an education in Biology on what is a "child" and what isn't.

Notice this, I never forced them to do some things that will never be said. Now, I refer to a "child" as any offspring of an arbitrary person. If you want to be technical, why kill a fetus, if killing a 3yr old is illegal. Now, as for adopting homeless children, how many did YOU adopt

Deflection is an idiots favorite tool. I'm Pro-Choice so I'm not the one bent on forcing someone to have an unwanted child like you however I do give to charities that support homeless children. Comparing a three year old to an embryo is ludicrous.

Okay, an embryo is not a 3 year old child, that much is true. But remember, that embryo could one day become a 3 year old child. Abortion = death, not-abortion = chance of life. You are Pro-Choice for murdering it, but I'm Pro-Life in that even though it isn't born yet and therefore not a person, it one day could be. If you don't want unwanted children, don't do things that cause them, and supporting that is also supporting choice, as you help people realize that not doing things to get the child in the first place is a choice as well.

If, ands or buts don't a president make. You're on pure assumption that is makes term. Bottom line, it's not your life or your choice so you have absolutely no say so on what a woman does with her life. If you want to have a say then go to a clinic and offer to pay for the medical and support expenses then adopt the unwanted child. Then you would have made a difference. Everything you Pro-Lifers do is talk and it's cheap as hell that's why it's all you do.

"Could" in this sense is not an assumption, but a possibility. And, it is the parents' choice, after all, to do things to cause a child to be born. If you claim rape as a problem, that is against choice and you should deal with the more dangerous threat to your choices than abortion.

The possibility of something living is the same as an assumption it might live or die. As for rape, it was just a scenario. You're passing right over the intent. Have a good night.

Now, I'm not assuming the child will live, I'm saying it COULD. What AM I assuming then? That it wasn't their choice? A majority of unwanted kids end up happening because people don't think their decisions through

"Could" is an assumption. Learn the definition. Forcing women to carry to term will end up with more orphaned children when that woman does not want a child. Many pregnancies happen by accident whether bad contraceptive, rape or just a selfish guy who pulls off the condom. No one should be forced to do something they don't want and when an embryo is solely dependent on the mother it is part of her body not an individual. That's another reason the Supreme Court made the ruling for Pro-Choice.

I'm actually volunteering all next week. But that's beside the point.

You say we can't determine when life begins. We have determined it. W know that this fetus is a human fetus. OBviously it's rediculous to say otherwise. We know it is alive, it has a heartbeat, brain waves, and many other signs of life. We also know that this living human child, is an individual. Abortion supporters used to claim the fetus is part of the woman's body, but now scientists have found otherwise.

(Theres actually a cool system that goes on, since normally the mother has systems in place to essentially kill any flesh in her body that isn't hers, but there is another system that has recently been found that protects the child from these flesh killers.)

The question isn't whether it is alive or not. Or whether it is human or not.
I have heard the strongest argument claiming abortion MIGHT not be murder, from a Christian. The question is: when does the baby receive a soul. That's the ONLY thing in question at this point, and it will likely not be answered. (At least not anytime soon) When you say it isn't human, I think this is what you must mean. The only thing that would cause me to think that abortion should be allowed is if it were proven that the soul came after. Until then, I'm going to err on the side of life.

I have heard so many arguments for abortion, and each time it seems like the word soul just isn't in the debaters vocabulary. They say it isn't human, or we don't know if it's alive, when at times it's clear that isn't what they mean to say.

Of course almost no democrat will likely say this, as they don't believe in souls. They simply have to work around the word and try their best to describe why abortion is ok without 'soul'.

I'm not a Democrat nor Republican. I'm an Independent therefore I think for myself with no sheep agenda. I figured you were religious. You can leave soul out of the equation that concept is all speculation. There are no brain waves in an embryo at 12 weeks therefore it is not a functioning human. The law allows people in a coma with no brain activity to be "unplugged" because they are determined legally dead. Until a fetus can be self sustaining outside of the womb it is part of the woman's body and therefore her decision on what to do.

Someone with a disability may rely on others to live, someone with sickness may rely on a machine to keep them alive. That doesn't make them someone else property. As I stated, they ARE individuals. There is no denying it. Do they need life support? Yes. Do they rely on others to live? Absolutely. We all do at times and there's nothing wrong with that, and we are still individuals. You would have to be a sheep to believe otherwise. ;)

That's hilarious. You're not an individual without a brain. You would have to be completely ignorant to think otherwise.

https://i.imgflip.com/17kpsj.jpg

That's your opinion. That's why he has such a large following because many people think YOUR opinion is WRONG.

LOL

Typical sheep response. Go to the herd they are calling you.

Okie doke. I vote my conscience. And libertarian policies are bad too.

You don't have a conscience if you vote for Hillary. Someone must turn a blind eye to her activities and out right lies along with her hypocritical foundation that has made her rich with contributions from countries that are a free person's worst nightmare. You're a blind sheep.

Did you even read the meme??

Voting Cruz.

Don't see anything about Cruz and he's gone.

Hey NotU, a vote isn't "worthless," as it successfully conveys how a person feels. The only time a vote is "worthless" is when it's not voting at all.

Voting for a ghost is not voting at all when it comes to a candidate. The vote goes in the garbage. It only placates the voter which is exactly what a purposeful non-vote does.

But remember, that a "non-worthless vote" is still only an opinion.

Now you're just making comments to hear yourself talk. Your last reply was irrelevant. Why don't you just say "a vote". The difference is putting your opinion on a viable candidate can make a difference on who actually gets into office. Putting your opinion on ghost is the same as not voting to everyone but the person with the opinion.

Hey, listen to this, a "vote" doesn't have to actually do anything. All a vote really is, is you stating your opinion. Like, seriously, the whole reason we have elections in the USA is they cared about the opinions of many when they founded the country

A non-vote is an opinion. Ever heard our politicians "abstain"? They do it all the time. Writing in Cruz on a ballot is the same as writing in Gomer Pyle or simply saying "I refuse to vote".

You don't understand how voting works. It's not the same as a non-vote. No more so than voting for Johnson (who cannot win). Each American is to vote their conscience... not play a guessing game of who can beat whom. If you loved this country you'd know that. TTFN

Your vote is going in the garbage. My vote is furthering the agenda to have an equal third party in future elections. There is no "guessing game" on whether Cruz has a chance. He's a dead candidate. You're not voting, you're appeasing your conscience.

Lol. You just said Trump and Conservative in the same sentence!! No wonder you're unsupport Johnson. There is NO conservative running right now. So we have to write one in. You've given me quite the chuckle. Thanks for upping my score with comments!

He is more conservative than Hillary and being your vote is worthless you really have no room to ridicule anyone. No problem with the score. It means nothing to me on my side or yours.

"More conservative" does not make him conservative. Case closed.

LOL, only in your logic. Which is about as good as your vote.

My logic and vote are perfectly patriotic. Have a nice evening. Let you have the last comment.

But you do see I'm not voting Hillary or Trump or Johnson. Please pay attention lemming.

There is nothing else there to state otherwise. Nothing shows your non-support for Hillary. You're only option is to not vote.

Like I said such that intelligent people could understand (have them explain it to you)... I have to vote FOR someone. I cannot vote FOR Hillary, FOR Trump, or FOR Johnson... So I will, as a patriotic American, vote FOR the person best suited to lead this country. Period. End of discussion.

Same as a non-vote. Brilliant.

My vote is furthering the conservative agenda. Equally valid to yours. Sorry you're yes so blinded by hate to see it.

Since when is truth hatred? The conservative agenda is now Trump. Cruz is an afterthought for the losers. Doesn't matter what you say, a vote for Cruz is a non-vote and does absolutely NOTHING for any conservative agenda but your own.

The meme complains about them both. The reply about Johnson. Please get your parents to read to you.

I am voting. For Cruz. Write in.

LOL, you're voting for a non-issue. Brilliant. And you comment about MY intelligence. What a moron.