CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you have to be prochoice to support Planned Parenthood?
I say no. I disagree with abortion but I support contraceptive and healthcare services. People should work together to prevent abortion and unplanned pregnancy.
You can support Planned Parenthood as a prochoice person. It is about your priorities.
Is it more important to promote/educate for planned parenthood than to oppose abortion? If so, then supporting that specific program would not be contradictory.
Of course, you could also support a program that only advocates for planned parenting without supporting abortions. It all depends on personal priorities.
Not necessarily, but one should know that if you give financial support to Planned Parenthood, it will (at least in part) be going to help fund abortion and abortion related services.
If you believe education, contraception, etc. help prevent abortions and/or that most abortions would be done without planned parenthood if it wasn't there, you could very reasonably believe that you are doing more to prevent abortion than to support it.
I wasn't offering evidence, per se, just related debates.
In them I make the case that pro-choice and pro-life are a false dichotomy as some people (whether liberal or conservative) might be against abortion personally, but still think that a woman who does get one should not go to jail.
My debate
What do you consider the takeaway from that debate? Several people seemed to agree with you that fewer abortions was the goal rather than the ban. And the number of arguments and the points seem to be in favor of your argument for fewer abortions as well.
There is no false dichotomy, just inaccurate labels.
In my debate the people who wanted fewer debates were all pro choice. The pro life people couldn't make an argument for wanting fewer abortions without legislation. Pro life people only want a law, not more life.
There is no false dichotomy, just inaccurate labels.
That's a false dichotomy of its own. One can believe that the current labels are inaccurate and that they present a false dichotomy.
Pro life people only want a law
Your debate had a total of 10 people (including you and me) and over half of them were on our side - not exactly a good survey of pro-life thought. Polls show that a majority of people who are pro-life think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances (ref). And those polls are not telling the full story (ref)
You can't really support only part of an organization. If you want legislation to shut down part of the services they provide you aren't really supporting them, you are supporting your idea of what they could be.
Planned Parenthood is not only contraception. I already explained this. Can I really support Democrats while saying that I don't like their stance on financial responsibility, taxes, gun control, and foreign policy?
It does, and in effect it is, but in this country there really isn't anything we can that's better until we can fundamentally change the way elections in this country work.
You and me both, though I guess I generally vote third party on principle unless it's an election that is legitimately contested, then back to the "lesser of two evils" nonsense.
But hey, I vote for a major party when it actually counts :P I've just generally lived in states that are completely and utterly uncontested. For example, when I lived in Oregon, I lived in an area where the Representative was voted for by somewhere near 90% of the populace, and the Senate seats are completely uncontested. When it comes to the electoral college, Oregon hasn't gone red since 1984 (though it got pretty close a few times there). So why not vote on principle at that point?
If you buy a computer and the company pays a commission to that employee who goes to get an abortion - did you just help fund it? Money is fungible - and that person made their own decision.
Absolutism is difficult to achieve in real life - some amount of oil profits go to ISIS, should everyone stop buying gas?
You are talking about an extra layer of separation and different actions. When you buy a computer you aren't supporting the company, you are getting a product. She is saying that she likes what Planned Parenthood does except the stuff that Planned Parenthood does that she doesn't like. Let's see, what can I use that statement on, oh yeah, EVERYTHING!
The second layer of separation is different because they aren't acting in the interest of the company in question.
Buying products is a different scenario like I tried to point out. I would say it is impossible to claim you don't help the store sell the items you don't like because you are keeping them in business even if you aren't buying the products you don't like.
I agree that you are helping the organization keep providing the services, so you can't support Planned Parenthood without supporting abortion.
The company only has an interest in providing the supply if there is a demand and you are not contributing to the demand.
Providing commissions, health benefits, salaries, etc. which the employees may use to get abortions helps the company attract a workforce and is in the company's interest.
If there are enough contributions from those who do support abortion to cover the amount that goes to them, then you could still consider that your money would go to other services. (See also my post on the other side)
If there are enough contributions from those who do support abortion to cover the amount that goes to them, then you could still consider that your money would go to other services.
This contradicts your earlier post. You are claiming that money is so fungible that a company paying its employees is contributing to what they buy, but not fungible enough that you can separate money if you have enough to go around. You are taking both sides.
That's basically the nature of fungibility - some people might consider each of the separate parts as belonging to all of the wholes derived from those parts and others might not.
Because when you purchase a product or service, you are only endorsing that specific product or service. Purchasing a Coke does not mean you like or support Sprite. But donating to a cause generally implies that you support that cause.
Similarly, you may give to an organization (purchase) which provides mammograms (service/Coke) without that donation meaning you like abortions (Sprite). Planned Parenthood isn't a "cause", it is a multi-faceted organization which provides many products/services.
This is true, but that generally requires further clarification, unlike the purchase of a specific service or coke. Donating to an organization implies support of that organization without that further clarification. Purchasing a coke makes no implication re: sprite.
Not just that, but sometimes a purchase is made because it is somehow 'necessary' even if you don't particularly care for the product. The law requires individuals to carry car insurance, so purchasing car insurance doesn't necessarily imply that you support car insurance in general or even the specific company you go with. If you're shopping for roast beef for sandwiches and really want Boar's Head roast beef, but the deli is out, you might purchase a different brand because, well, you need/want some roast beef.
Donations are 100% voluntary and optional, involve no receipt of goods that may be needed or desired despite ones personal opinion on the products and company, and it's not like there is a possibility of donations for one cause 'running out' forcing you to donate to a different one.
Even if I make my intention clear - that I like coke, I still support the store generally. They use money from the sale of cokes to help pay employees, pay rent, electricity, etc. which also helps facilitate the sale of sprite (or cigarettes, condoms, alcohol, nudie mags, inorganic foods, etc., etc.)
Donations are 100% voluntary and optional
Therefore I'm only comparing them to voluntary purchases.
Now we're talking about the store rather than the brand, and the same deal could apply.
Even so, financially supporting a company via custom need not imply that the individual support's anything the business does at all from any kind of moral, ethical, or any other standpoint beyond the fact that they support that the company carries/provides that product/service. Purchasing a product means that you desire that product.
A donation, on the other hand, means that you want to see the organization/cause/whatever succeed. It is innately a unilateral endorsement in a manner that a purchase simply is not.
financially supporting a company via custom need not imply that the individual support's anything the business does at all from any kind of moral, ethical, or any other standpoint beyond the fact that they support that the company carries/provides that product/service.
You seem to be saying that it is the case, but not why it is the case that replacing company/business with charitable organization wouldn't fit just as well. An organization is a distinct thing from all of the causes it might support - the same way a grocery is distinct from its products.
It all has to do with the purchasers intent, really. Donations of a certain size range, significant but not ludicrous, might be assumed to be done for tax purposes, really. And particularly large donations might be seen as simply wanting goodwill. But those donations tend to be rare compared to the smaller donations, which are almost entirely done to support the organizations purpose.
A bit of a metaphor- Purchasing a product generally means to support a tree, and as a side effect of, I dunno, additional pollination and a better nitrogen cycle in the soil, inadvertently support the forest, even if you don't care for one particular distorted ugly tree that may benefit from the process. Making a donation generally means to support a forest, which in and of itself means supporting all of the trees- the exception for the distorted ugly tree is not implied if not noted. Do you get that?
One small correction - an organization can have multiple purposes, and a person's intent might be to support only a subset of those purposes.
I never suggested that a person might not have such an actual intent, merely that the actions have a different apparent intent in the absence of an explanation made by the purchaser/donater.
It is human nature to assume different things depending on where in an apparent hierarchy attention is directed. Look at political stances, as an example- If an individual states he or she is a Republican, most are likely to start under the assumption that his or her political stance is entirely in-line with the stated platform of the Republican party (or their distorted image of said platform in some cases, to be fair). If said individual does not specifically clarify that he or she is pro-choice, most are likely to start under the assumption that he or she is pro-life.
What fallacy is it to cut off my argument mid sentence? You are literally calling 2/3 of my sentence a fallacy. You didn't even give me the common courtesy of reading an entire sentence. How dare you accuse me of making fallacies with 2/3 of a sentence.
