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.
If they are suffering, I have no problem with it. My problem is with killing the unborn chchild for any reason other than the life of the mother or if the child will die anyway. I hope my answers help.
If someone is braindead, they aren't suffering, but we pull the plug all the time. How is that different than aborting before a fetus has minimal brain activity (which is when the majority of abortions happen)?
minimal brain activity. There is still some but not enough for the patient to survive on their own, so they are hooked up to life support. At this point, the patient does not have enough brain activity in the right parts of his brain to feel pain or fear.
Using the general definition of able to feel physical or emotional senses, no, they are not sentient. However, if a brain dead person has injuries, like a cut on the leg, it can still heal, in a number of cases, you can still cause reflex reactions such as kicking, but they have no knowledge, awareness, or control over this.
And yet you oppose abortion? In both cases we are talking about organisms that are not conscious or "effectively" sentient, and can not survive without external support.
Liberals can be prolife. I am prolife due to science, not religiion. Religion has nothing to do with abortion. This debate is about whether prochoice is proabortion or not. Please stay on topic.
I agree with Mr. Sparticus guy.. sort of. It's not about pro life or religion or whatever. It's more when does life start. Until 24-26 weeks of gestation, a fetus doesn't have the brain activity of a brain dead adult. They don't feel pain, feel fear, or really have any awareness. Any movement seen prior to that point is simply electrical impulses caused as neurons in the spinal cord develop. So as much as a zygote is technically alive, until 24-26 weeks, a fetus is not alive according to medical standards (brain activity and sentience). If we say it's ok to pull a man off life support, an external machine that essentially runs on its own with minimal to no disruption to anyone else's daily life, why do we say it's not ok to abort a fetus, something that can only survive through a parasitic interaction (I'm going to assume you have no qualms about people taking anti parasitic medicine) with a woman who doesn't want it?
Now, this only applies to abortions prior to that 24 week mark, but that is when the vast majority of abortions happen (technically, the majority are prior to 20 weeks) and generally, any abortions after that are due to health reasons.
As far as the original topic, prochoice and proabortion, China is proabortion - with the one child policy and recommending or forcing people to abort any further children. America is prochoice - we think that abortion should be an option for the woman who need or want to go that route, but I don't know anyone who is going to force a pregnant woman to abort over keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption. Prochoice people think abortion should be a last resort perhaps, or one option out of many, that it can be unpleasant, and shouldn't be taken lightly, but it is important as an option.
Additionally, I'd like to add, since abortion was legalized, abortion rates went down. When it doesn't have to be done under the cover of darkness, when it's legal and accessible, women can take the time to weigh their options.
Anyway, so what are your reasons for being prolife? I know that I often come prepared to fight on a religious front, because that is where the majority come from, but I'm curious to hear your scientific reasons! Is it the "when life begins" thing, or the potential for the fetus, or what?
(Sorry, I like hearing the other points of view so I can either strengthen my argument or temper my opinion.)
You don't offend! I think this is the point of the site - to discuss the two different sides civilly, share information, and potentially broaden views and increase understanding. I've explained why I believe that sentience should be the determining factor of morality, but that's just my opinion. I'd really like to hear a scientific opposition, because it's not where the majority go.
(God, tone is very bad when typing. I don't mean any of this to be sarcastic or dismissive. I really do want to understand why you're prolife! I likely won't convert but I may come a little closer to the middle!)
Very well said, and good call regarding China: I tend to forget that China, as a country, can certainly be considered Pro-Abortion, a term that I mistakenly claimed applied to nobody.
China is ridiculously pro-abortion. I don't know that they claim that title, and I imagine they aren't the only country (I think I've heard that Russia used to push abortion for certain classes and even the US used to do so for black people, criminals, and the mentally ill), but China was the only one I could think of off the top of my head (my mother is a Chinese History expert).
Ooo, I forgot. During the Holocaust in Europe, the Jewish Community was actually proabortion. Rabbis were, for the most part, recommending that pregnant women abort because if they were taken to a concentration camp, a woman who could work (a non-pregnant woman) was more likely to live longer than the pregnant woman (also, so that women didn't have to give birth to Nazi rapist babies, and so that the Nazis didn't perform forced, dangerous, and painful abortions on them). The Jewish faith values the born over the unborn, so while they generally are pro-life on a day to day basis, they were strongly recommending abortions over any other options, even to women who wanted their future babies.
First, I never brought up religion. Second, the word "abortion" was in my very comment, and was in direct response to a previous post of yours. Clearly, I was on topic.
I have also demonstrated to you the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, but every time I have done so you have refused (intentionally or unintentionally) to respond. Must I do so again?
SOME pro-lifers support that, but hardly most. Most pro-life individuals are on the right, and the Right has a history of opposing comprehensive sex education, many forms of contraception, "and so on". I agree that the Democrats for Life are an admirable group, but you should not conflate them with the Pro-Life movement as a whole.
So what? Those aren't the only prolife people. Like I said. The not you prolifers. You listed a bunch of things that have nothing to do with being prolife. Stop lying to yourself.
Good for them. What does a minority of pro lifers have to do with anything. They don't believe in those things because of being pro life. They believe it because they are liberal.
zyou have the right to your opinion.
I actually stated 2 facts. Which one was an opinion?
Liberal prolifers DO support the things I mentioned.
For the third time, I am not disputing this. Try reading what I was disputing.
No, you have proven that one dictionary considers them to be synonymous.
Pro means in favor of, so pro-abortion would be in favor of abortion. I suppose you could claim that someone who is actively preferring getting an abortion instead of having the child would be "pro-abortion", but simply being pro-choice is not, by meaning of the term "pro", pro-abortion, as I have already indicated to you.
You are just repeating the same thing over and over. Again, you have provided one source that contends that they are synonymous. Explain how I am pro-choice, in that I believe it should be legal and not my choice to make, and yet considering abortion to be a terrible thing that should be avoided whenever possible. Please, tell me how I am "pro" abortion when I am, in fact, against it.
There is a view that liberalism promotes the understanding of the principles of democracy, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property, values which should support pro-choice.
The Wikipedia definition of pro-choice reads as follows:-
"Pro-choice is the position which advocates the existence of a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Pro-choice can also be a position of support of a person's right to choose whether or not to end his or her life by euthanasia or assisted suicide and other social ethic issues concerned with one's personal autonomy. The term is most often used to emphasize a position of bodily integrity, individual sovereignty and self-determination, particularly on issues of public policy, law, political controversies and medical ethics"
So it appears that a true liberal society should support prochoice with regard to abortion, etc, etc..
However it is quite obvious that that is not the case in reality.
It's totally amazing that most of these arrogant control fanatics who are FIXATED on the so called right's of Gays to marry are the same radical Babyphobic pro choice people that deny an innocent Baby the right of LIFE! Then they will deny who they are by saying they don't personally like abortions.... LOL what total phonies as they elect even the late term on demand pro abortion politicians in the Democrat party.
This is why I ignore so many of the extremists on this site. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
So you decry the usage of the term homophobic for someone who is anti-gay, then hypocritically use the term babyphobic to describe someone who is proce choie?
And enough with the "late term on demand" lie. You have never proven it, so why do you keep repeating it?
Wouldn't that make being pro life and anti gay marriage hypocritical? Just wondering. Plus, the creator of the debate is pro life and pro gay marriage.
No, the term 'pro-choice' is blatantly self explanatory. It means people should have a 'choice' whether or not to have an abortion, providing the pregnancy hasn't gone beyond the legal time limit for a termination. In this context ''Pro'' would mean ''in favour of'', i.e, in favour of choice.
Abortion exists. The pro life movement can't stop that fact. You can recognize that punishing someone for doing something won't make that thing go away. The first step to reducing abortions is to recognize that women do have the choice no matter how much it is regulated.
Did you read my argument? How about trying to read my argument? Hey, have you tried reading my argument? I have no idea what you are talking about with "not respect". If a woman is already pregnant and doesn't want her baby it is too late. You need to stop abortion before it gets to a point where it is needed. Being pro choice can just mean you don't think a law banning it will help.
Abortion exists. The pro life movement can't stop that fact. You can recognize that punishing someone for doing something won't make that thing go away. The first step to reducing abortions is to recognize that women do have the choice no matter how much it is regulated. You aren't legalizing abortion, you are recognizing that you can't regulate it.
No. Pro-choice merely means that regardless of your opinion on abortion, you think that the choice should belong to the woman. That means they merely think that it is not the right of others to decide what a woman should do with her body, and if she wants to, she should at least have the option of a safe abortion.
Well, if you're just going off the dictionary definitions of these words, there is no point in having a debate because you just look it up. But if you are questioning whether or not pro-choice means that someone supports abortions themselves happening (which IS a topic worth discussing) then let people talk about that.
Well, you started a debate that said "is prochoice probation." If you are going by dictionary definitions (which is what you are solely using to argue) then why create a debate at all? With this topic, when the definitions are unknown, you seem to be trying to trick people into debating something that can't be debated.
If you are interested in a discussion on whether being "pro-choice" is the same thing as favoring abortions, that's something people are able to talk about. But if you are simply saying is "are these two words with the same definition the same" what is the point?
You should go back to all the people that you responded to with the answer "did you see the links I used" and reevaluate what they actually wrote and give them a thought out response.
Well, I already demonstrated that I wanted to start stuff by putting my argument in the first place. I thought the point of this site was to dispute people. What am I doing wrong? Seriously.
I only go after you because you are on the website saying stuff. I am not holding a personal grudge against you. I am going to keep pointing out what I think is wrong about your arguments. If there is something you don't like about how I respond to you starting over won't change anything. I have nothing to start over. I will do my best to only ever hold your current argument against you. Starting over is cool, but I don't know what I need to do. I hope your ciggy craving goes away.
One can believe that it is more damaging on the whole to ban a practice than it is to make the practice legal and relatively safe, without necessarily condoning the practice itself.
Take alcohol prohibition, for an example. The dangers and damaging effects of alcohol haven't gone away since the repeal of prohibition; it was simply recognized that the effect of prohibition was more damaging than making the substance regulated but legal. I believe the same to be true of legislation regarding abortion, even if I am personally opposed to the practice in most cases.
