CreateDebate


JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JustIgnoreMe's arguments, looking across every debate.

The etymology of a word is not dispositive of whether the word's meaning is ambiguous among the general public.

If you are anti-abortion morally, you can still believe that the ultimate choice should be legal for a woman to make - thus fitting descriptions for both pro-life and pro-choice.

JustIgnoreMe(1153) Clarified
1 point

You have also said that you believe mercy killing and self-defense other than to protect one's life should be legal - do you think these legal exceptions should apply to abortion as well?

JustIgnoreMe(1153) Clarified
1 point

The debate's purpose is to show that people can be both.

If you think people should choose life, but legally can choose abortion, then you might consider yourself both pro-life and pro-choice.

I think there is ambiguity in the term which leads to the problem. Some of its adherents believe it means preferring life and some think it means banning abortion.

The term "pro-life" only denotes per se that life is to be preferred, and technically says nothing about its legality. This is exactly the confusion I am seeking to illuminate.

JustIgnoreMe(1153) Clarified
1 point

Sweet.

Therefore:

thinking it should be legal = supporting choice = pro-choice, right?

gun control

regulations balancing individual rights and public safety are not the same as the government coming for your guns.

censorship of religious expression in public

saying you shouldn't use my tax dollars to lead your kid in school prayer is not the same thing as "censorship of religious expression in public"

lie of separation of church & state

We use the phrase wall of separation between church & state to refer to the 1st Amendment - just like Thomas Jefferson did.

forced paying for abortions

Obamacare was written to comply with the Hyde amendment banning Federal money for abortion except in case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother and Obama issued Executive Order 13535 stating the same.

The provision of Obamacare allowing women access to birth control without a co-pay will likely reduce abortions and teen pregnancies ref

forced buying of Obamacare

mandatory insurance was a conservative "personal responsibility" idea, before it was a liberal compromise health-care plan.

I can not remember the names & dates of every news story pointing out College censorship of Conservative speakers.

We aren't asking for every, just any...

Have you ever noticed how sometimes a person will offer an opinion and then someone else will disagree?

JustIgnoreMe(1153) Clarified
1 point

thinking choice should be legal means supporting choice

doesn't "Pro" choice just meant the same thing as "supporting choice"?

No prob - I know I have done it before myself. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

If you think the choice should be legal, aren't you supporting choice?

You have said twice now that you consider yourself both, yet you are answering the question "Can a person be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?" with "No".

One of us is very confused...

brainwashed to hate Fox news

Rather than brainwashed, is it possible that we watched and decided for ourselves?

So, the solution is to advertise yourself as a close-minded/bigoted (religious) school?

For a second your post switched to the Yes side, but now it is back under No.

I'll bite: why not? (I feel a semantic argument with the debate title coming on.)

P.S. Here is my post from 3 years ago saying largely what I told Dana/Sitara about people who could be considered both.

I don't know if you got this from my post

Not sure I have seen your post on it, but it is something I have run into several times most recently with Dana - thought I would create it as a debate on its own.

I describe myself as both.

Did you mean to post your answer under "Yes"?

"We" - didn't ask me shit - you created a fake account and are posting with same. If Andy wants to kill her account I assume he will.

Dude - either debate her or ignore her. Grow up.

It was over $3.70 in June and is now $3.12 - it is already under $3 at several gas stations near me.

With Ebola resolving and the holidays coming I assume it will start going back up, but it might at least dip below $3 for a moment.

the only option to save the mothers life

What if it isn't to save the mother's life, but to save her ovaries or protect her from other organ damage, or to protect her financially, or...

complications or other abnormal factors

might be a bit convoluded, but I think this is a good place to mention rape. Does allowing only for "abnormal factors" rely on some level of consent to sex carrying with it the consent to the normal risks associated with pregnancy?

Immediate specific danger, not statistical potential danger.

All danger is in the form of statistical potential danger.

I wouldn't have a dog put down because it was a 'threatening breed' like a put bull, I wouldn't have a dog put down because it had a history of biting when its tail was pulled. I would have a dog put down if it was in the habit of attacking with little or no provocation.

This would mean that no abortion could be preventative - you must wait until the fetus creates an actual injury or death to take action.

Sure, pregnancy carries some level of risk with it, but that's not what is being examined here.

Why not?

the danger can be readily alleviated by an emergency c-section or induced labor

Induced labor after 12 weeks but before viability would be an abortion, correct?

An abortion procedure itself is not without risk for the mother

But generally less danger than the pregnancy. ref

I'm not talking about 'increased danger' statistically

I was referring more to the same rights as animals - if an animal poses a danger, then I would assume you would believe it should be legal to put it down (or at least give it away, which before viability is not really an option during pregnancy.)

Using that standard would abortions be allowed at any time since pregnancy always poses increased danger for the mother?

I apologize if you have already answered this elsewhere - when you say wrong, do you mean morally, legally, or both?

More specifically, which laws related to abortion do you think should exist?

legal = pro-choice: (& false dichotomy)

Support for allowing the woman to make the decision = "pro-choice".

If someone thinks it should be legal, they are "pro-choice", even if they also consider themselves "pro-life".

abortion as mercy killing:

If a mother learns that her child does not have most of its brain and will either be still born or die within hours of birth and if the child is experiencing pain should a mother consider abortion to end its suffering?


1 of 64 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.