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.
Prolife people view the baby in the womb as a human being with a life worth protecting. From that perspective, pro-choice means killing innocent people is acceptable. Pro choice may not mean we should kill people (pro abortion), but the killing of babies is acceptible. This is not a much better position.
Imagine saying that you don't agree with genocide, but the German people had a right to govern their country as they saw fit.
Pro choice may not mean we should kill people (pro abortion), but the killing of babies is acceptible [sic]. This is not a much better position.
That is a gross misrepresentation of their position: (1) They generally do not view the fetus as being a "person"; and, (2) given the foregoing perspective - that the fetus lacks personhood - those who maintain the pro-choice position would not likely consider the fetus a "baby", either (especially since the term "baby" refers to a born child).
Imagine saying that you don't agree with genocide, but the German people had a right to govern their country as they saw fit.
This is a faulty analogy due to the foresaid misrepresentation.
I'm sure you noticed that I qualified this statement as being from the perpctive of the pro life position. If not, read it again.
I know that the pro choice position views this as a misrepresentation, but that's not the perspective from which I presented. Similarly, the Nazis didn't view Jews as people and outside interference would have been considered an infringement on a sovereign nation. From the pro life position, the analogy is accurate.
I'm sure you noticed that I qualified this statement as being from the perpctive of the pro life position.
I understand. I am merely confuting your interpretation of their perspective.
Similarly, the Nazis didn't view Jews as people and outside interference would have been considered an infringement on a sovereign nation.
To analogize the political viewing of persons as subhuman--an inferior human being--and the biological view of a fetus as an entity wholly distinct from a Human is, still, a faulty analogy. The obvious fault being that the Nazis viewed the Jews (among others) as being people/Human, just an inferior race within the species, while most of the pro-choice advocates view the fetus as being a bundle of cells with the potential to be Human.
-
From both the Nazi and Pro-choice perspective, respectively:
Subhuman = Human (+) Inferiority
Fetus = Bundle of cells (+) Potentiality (-) Humanness
I understand. I am merely confuting your interpretation of their perspective.
No. By presenting an argument from the opposite you do not, in fact, confute the interpretation from this position.
The distinction between considering the target for extermination sub human vs non human is minor. Both the Jews and fetuses are considered less than fully human and thus acceptible to extinguish.
By presenting an argument from the opposite you do not, in fact, confute the interpretation from this position.
Well, this is going nowhere. This is a matter of interpretation, and you have subjected the answer to require a subjective analysis of English grammar.
The distinction between considering the target for extermination sub human vs non human is minor. Both the Jews and fetuses are considered less than fully human and thus acceptible to extinguish.
Again, the Jews were considered fully human, just an inferior race (the University of Tennesee (UKT) being inferior to Princeton University, for example, does not make UKT less of a University, just simply an inferior one). Thus, the comparison is still invalid. No matter, just use another one....
The Jews did not merit the same moral considerations as fellow German citizens. The fetus does not merit the same moral considerations as fellow American citizens. A pro-lifer would see that both groups of people are being denied moral considerations otherwise offered to people because they are "less than".
An analogy need not be precise to be valid, as mine is.
What you are presenting now is seemingly a valid comparison; however, the reasons underlying the two foregoing perspectives are, still, flawed and incomparable.
I wouldn't say pro choice is automatically "pro abortion". Some people support pro choice out of the thought that the mother's life is in danger, rape pregnancies, etc.
I personally am pro life, but I can at least see the logic in certain extreme cases. For the most part, I think that if you do the crime, you pay the time. If you don't want kids, don't get pregnant or get her pregnant. There are many ways to prevent it, and not have to kill a child.
People should be FREE to make decisions in their own lives about owning slaves WITHOUT government interference. Pro-choice is indeed pro-freedom to own slaves
They're too dim-witted to understand, but it follows easily that proabortion means forcing people to use abortions. Even then it is a childish term, and some also like to refer to it as prodeath. They can't ever think up to understand what they are saying.
Prochoice is about giving them the choice whether they want to.
then all of you eating animals are huge sinners .... pfft !! sinners whether ye be huge or not (Jesus is our Salvation) ALL are sinners ... and eating animals is okay according to the Word of God .... (didn't think of that, now did ya?) lol
Pro life and pro choice are the terms that adopted by each group respectively as a way to put their position in the best possible light.
The opposite of anti is pro. The opposite of anti-abortion (pro-life) is pro-abortion, which is not to say you think everyone should have an abortion, but that you are in favor of that option. Anti wants it off the table, pro wants it on the table.
The above notwithstanding, it is probably best to reserve the pro-abortion label for those who find them preferable Some people are quite literally for abortions. They like them and want more of them.
"Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had" -Lena Dunham
My argument here is that "pro-abortion" is a perfectly coherent label for anti-prolifers, but because of variations in the perspective opposing pro-life, it is not the most precise label except in more limited circumstances.
Your less than full grasp of English semantics would require that pro-life people are against choices. They aren't against choices, they are against a particular choice. Just as pro-choice people aren't against life, but against a particular life, that of the unwanted unborn.
This happens when you apply the world views and reasoning of one side to the labels adopted by the other. Nonetheless, those in favor of keeping abortion on the table are in favor of the abortion option. They are pro/in favor of.
I know English is not your first language, so I won't fault you for the confusion. However, I will recommend that you drop the snide pomposity when you step outside your semantic depth.
It is sort of my first language, just not my native one.
Anyway, you seem confused over it here. Everyone knows that Prolife position is not against every possible choice, so it makes no sense to bring it up. It is, after all, a position for only a single topic - about babies being born.
those in favor of keeping abortion on the table are in favor of the abortion option.
They are not in the favour of any option, that's why they are keeping both choices on the table.
pro-choice people aren't against life, but against a particular life, that of the unwanted unborn.
You have to favour a position only if you are the one making choices for the others. They are also keeping the other option on the table, in case you didn't notice (even though that's been my major argument in this whole debate).
Though I expected that the anti-life position named by your own rules would help you understand.
As I can see I will not get through to you, and this isn't a particularly interesting topic, I'm going to let it go. Your confusion is simple enough that any other readers will understand my explanation and I can do little other than repeat myself.
Just as it is fine (though irrational) to doubt that you experience, it is fine (though incorrect) to think pro-life people do not support an abortion option. This is the last we will discuss the matter.
I feel like this was answered many times on several of the other debates you have posted on this topic. There are a few other debates like this as well.
Most of them yours.
I'm not saying this to poke at you but perhaps there is something specifically that you are looking for that hasn't been addressed multiple times already and maybe we can zero in on that? Or perhaps you need reaffirmation for something going on in your life?
