VEEP Debate--Who Won?

Post Reply New Topic

So that's what Pence was referring to with "that Mexican thing?" Trumps assertion that "some of them are very nice people." It is good that Trump thought to mention that. I'm not saying you guys don't have a problem with migration from Mexico; I just don't think a wall is the solution. What is wrong in Mexico anyway? That people want so badly to leave? I will google it.

Trump was referring specifically to illegal immigrants and the fact that Mexico literally facilitates them into reaching our country, Mexico has a serious illegal immigration problem too as most people illegally crossing the border today aren't even Mexican but rather Central American, look up how Mexico treats illegal immigrants if you think Trump's plan is so bad because I think you'd be surprised. Mexico hates Central Americans so much that they put them on trains in southern Mexico up to the border so they can get them out of the country, you don't think all these so called unaccompanied 'children' (a lot of 16 and 17 year olds) in the tens or hundreds of thousands are actually trudging almost 2000 miles northwards on their own do you? There 100% are murderers and rapists that cross the border into our country, a lot murderers and rapists flee our country into Mexico too. What would you call these cartels? These cartels often use children to carry out their most terrible crimes believe it or not. Securing our border shouldn't be the controversial, it helps Mexico and Trump has pledged to help Mexico with it's own much small southern border too. Saying he was referring to all Mexicans is just a straight up lie, talk about a big lie that gets repeated over and over again. I imagine that is why internationally so many people are so uninformed about Trump, all they get is biased propagandist news. Look up 'el tren de la muerte' if you don't believe me about it being facilitated, this could not happen without the Mexican government being complicit.

I don't disagree that there is an issue with the border being flooded. It makes sense that people from South America would head north through Mexico and into the West. And the exploitation of children and the vulnerable. I can't even bare to think about it. It saddens me that people will exploit others for personal satisfaction.

But a wall is logistically not the solution. Sometimes if you offer people a compromise they will be more respectful of your requests. What I mean is: don't make it impossible for them to reach the West, that will encourage desperation; rather, give people reachable expectations. I think you underestimate the value that people put on behaving decently. The average illegal immigrant is not a rapist and a murderer. I would imagine the rapist/murderer percentage among the immigrant population is the same as everywhere.

A wall serves a purpose, it won't entirely solve the issue of illegal immigration but illegal border crossings are whole issues in of themselves separate from the immigration issue. We at least know who people are who overstay their visa when they enter the country. I think it would definitely complicate things at least for the drug and human traffickers, these cartels can't be allowed to move in and out of our country with impunity. Crossing the border this way is EXTREMELY dangerous and hundreds of people die every year doing, a lot of people of people underestimate how deadly this desert can be and these coyotes & the cartels are responsible as well. Not to mention the risk to national security by people entering this country that we have no idea who they are, I can tell you that they catch a lot Latin Americans crossing this border. I know off the top of my head of incidences of Syrians, Afghans, and Pakistanis being apprehended. Having a secure border wall would put these coyotes out of business, it would put an end to deaths of these poor people that they take advantage of and often just abandon in the wilderness, it would help stop the flow of drugs like heroin/meth/cocaine into this country. If this avenue of entry is closed then people wouldn't attempt to cross to begin with.

Logistically I don't think it would be hard at all to complete, the money and the will just has to be there to get it done and once it is built then we have something tangible and actually does something as opposed to the trillions we've wasted overseas defending other countries borders. I think we should have a lot more of a presence on our border as opposed to spreading our armed forces so thin around the globe, we have issues here at home and in this hemisphere. We already have a partial border fence so so it's just an issue of expanding upon that. Getting Mexico's southern border secured is another step that would help a lot as well, there's is only about 700 miles long.

We agree about the problem that is to be solved, we disagree about how to do it. Is there not some way that people could be motivated to not want to leave South America. I get that Haiti has suffered a natural disaster and is having trouble recovering. Perhaps the States could do something to help at the source so that people wouldn't want to leave in the first place. I mean the U.S. is already involved in the Middle East; why not South America. And as for drugs; there's a market for a reason. Might as well decide how to exploit it rather than criminalize it.

Interlude:

Well on Mike Pence's perspective the idea of being anti-abortion is not to disrespect women but is the idea that as people we have no right to take away innocent life. It is depriving people of their chance of life and the idea of opposing abortion is not bent out of mistrust but is the idea that society should not accept a form of legalized murder.

As for Mike Pence's defense of Donald Trump. I think that what he is trying to say is that Donald Trump was not trying to generalize Mexicans a being rapists but was actually trying to highlight a very real problem in society.

What has innocence or guilt got to do with abortion?

You assume that all lives have value.

Is it murder to abstain from sex when you're fertile?

You are valuing life for no reason. Why should every sperm and egg live? There is not enough space for every human that could exist. And why do you value human life so much that you would have an unwanted child come into this? You think that because your life is enjoyable that every possible life would be so? That is the irresponsibility and arrogance that is exemplified by those such as Pence.

And the burden of women who are forced to undergo unwanted pregnancies is unthinkable. It is a woman's choice when to use her body to reproduce.

Well innocence has got something to do with abortion as when someone aborts a baby someone could say they are essentially killing an innocent life.

I would ask you what right to we have to take away someone else’s life?

I mean really if it is the nature of us as human beings in most cases to not desire death why should we end the life of a baby. And also most lives I would say have the potential to be enjoyable, sure there are struggles but there is also much great experiences to have and ultimately much to gain out of life.

Well someone could say that when you are abstaining from sex the process of human life has not begun whereas let’s say at the moment of conception.

Edit: I am personally not pro life I am arguing in this case as I want to understand the other side of this argument as well as the fact I really enjoy debates.

Innocent, guilty, who knows. That is beyond knowledge. I'm talking about the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. I really think we need to care about what happens to the baby after it is born. Life alone is not gift.


Or, what right do we have to bring an unwanted child into the world? Or, what right do we have to interfere with the bodily autonomy of a person?


Don't be so sure. The "culture of life" has a lot to learn about actually valuing the experience of life.


You'd say so would you? That's a guess and you know it. Potential is meaningless. I have the potential to walk in front of a car, will it happen, probably not.

Life alone is not a gift? That I would say is true. But if a baby and young child are cared for and nurtured it can become just that. The vast majority of people are capable of having of having a good life and by allowing a birth to take place a window is created to allow just that to happen. Let’s think about it if we allow a child to be born they will be able to develop relationships, enjoy themselves and be loved all the great human experiences. If we chose to end human life in the womb what we are essentially doing is denying someone that.

In regards to giving someone that potential for a good life that is exactly why Mike Pence has actually advocated for the expansion of adoption agencies.

Many women may also not wish to take this painful choice and if they do decided to have an abortion it may be hard to live with. By eliminating Abortion and with society dictating the rules in this case a woman will not have to live with the guilt and grief of having ended the life of a baby.

What right do we have to interfere with the bodily autonomy of a person? You ask well society has the right to interfere because the alternative would be to kill off human life. Also doesn’t being pro-choice actually violate someone’s right to determine what happens in their own life as the mother is essentially allowed to end it?
Also what I find is that as animals we actually have I think a natural instinct to care about our own life. This quality manifests in babies as well, they are capable of being afraid. That being said if we as humans and animals naturally desire life then what right do we have to take it away?

"Can" doesn't count for much when it "isn't."


What is your source for the "vast majority" being capable of having a good life? I think your sentiment is a fanciful wish. Birth can be as easily a window to hell.


Or, if we allow a child to be born they will experience horrors we did not expect. If we chose to end human life in the womb than we are protecting them from that.


Yeah, and that's going to work. If all the women who became pregnant were forced to carry the baby to term there would not be enough would-be parents to take care of them all. Adoption is not a viable solution.

And furthermore, if a woman doesn't want to carry a baby, it doesn't matter if Angelina Jolie wants to adopt it; a woman's body is her domain and if she doesn't want to subject herself to carrying a baby, she doesn't have to.


Oh yeah, it's way better to have society take physical control of your body than to exercise your free will. This is the first time I have seen this argument and I can't begin to tell you how insulting it is to me as a woman that someone might think that giving my bodily autonomy to the state would make my life easier. Women have been dealing with reproduction for a long time now; we have some idea how to handle it.


The value of the woman's autonomy carries more weight than the claims of a person who doesn't exist. Until we start growing fetuses in synthetic wombs, they are reliant on women to carry them. Since the woman actually is a person, not a collection of cells that might one day be a successful human, her autonomy trumps the fetus' assumed desire to live. I don't think a fetus is actually aware of it's existence, though.

But adoption is a viable solution just think about it for a minute, around 6% of women in the United States are infertile a certain percentage of them will go on to get married and want children. By ending abortion yes women with go through the immense pain of giving birth but what it also means is that children and families now have the chance to live the lives they want to, is months of labor really worth that due to what its taking away?

There is a chance any child could live a life of hell or a great life it is a risk of any pregnancy not restricted to abortions. If the chances are greater that a child would live a good life due to being adopted rather than a life of hell than what are the reasons we would have today for denying someone that chance?

As for what I said about a state deciding whether women should have abortions. I see your argument I really do but despite all you have said about woman's choice, if you have not had an abortion then you don't know what it is like to choose and many people from what I hear are full of guilt after having had an abortion. I know this was a strange argument but if you have society dictating the rules for abortion then it would eliminate the additional guilt many women face after having abortions.

In regards to fetuses couldn't you just say that like us they are human beings but simply at an early stage of development. Remember we were once fetuses as well. Are you saying that since fetuses are humans at an early stage of development that they are beneath consideration and care?

Last edited by Shahunshah on 07 Oct 2016, 7:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

this man would never expect any woman to go through what i'd be totally unwilling to go through. to want it any other way is just hypocrisy AFAIC.

It's not about the physical wear and tear of pregnancy and birth, it is about human autonomy over one's body; and moreso, one's choice to bring life into the world.


I can't speak to that from personal experience. I can imagine that there would be a wide range of emotions that a person who has an abortion would go through. But it comes back to what I said about autonomy. Guilt that one feels about one's actions is a matter for an individual to sort out, not the State. This brings me to thinking about what Trump said about punishing people who have abortions. Maybe that is to help them with their feelings of guilt?


Well they're not beneath consideration or we wouldn't be having this conversation and care should be taken if the fetus is to be brought to term.

The potential of the fetus for a worthwhile life does not outweigh a person't right to bodily autonomy. It's a shame. Like a flower that could have bloomed beautifully, but instead wilted due to neglect. But this is the reality of life. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions.

Yes people do have choices about what to do with their own bodies, but abortion is different, it is a woman deciding what to do with their own body at the expense of human life and that is something that cannot be allowed. A woman should have personal freedom but abortion is essentially women being granted the right to kill and that is a right that cannot be handed down.

In this pro-life argument what we are essentially saying is that this level of additional someone would be faced with having had an abortion would be gone. You say that the grief from having had an abortion should be up for the woman to sort out, what I am essentially saying is that it should be something no one should have to go through. Society dictating the guidelines is a way of preventing it.

"The potential of the fetus for a worthwhile life does not outweigh a person't right to bodily autonomy."
Well in this regard to tell me is months pain and labor worth the elimination of human life?

Also keep in mind fetuses would be able to feel pain as well in the instances of abortion. In the most common procedure in my country of New Zealand the suction methods, the limbs and parts of a fetuses are torn off in the process.

As for punishing women for having had an abortion well if abortions are to stop their has got to be some sort of incentive to make that happen and if that is punishments so be it. Otherwise people in America could simply leave towards another state to have an abortion before coming back and facing no repercussions. By not having punishments women are encouraged to do this action.