#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.
|
What does pro-choice mean?
When someone says they are pro-choice, what does that mean to you?
| Add New Argument |
|
2
points
1
point
0
points
0
points
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form. 1
point
1
point
0
points
"Trump said some form of punishment, while you spewed "PROSECUTION" The process for punishing people in this country is called prosecution. Even though abortion is legal, states still charge women for whatever they can. They are usually unsuccessful (even though women may spend years in jail before their case is overturned), but if you think states wouldn't charge women if Roe didn't prevent it, you are deluding yourself. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/ https://www.colorlines.com/articles/ https://wtvr.com/2017/04/03/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/30/us/ https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/ https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/ 2
points
Pro-choice is an umbrella term that refers to who people who believe that it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy up to a certain stage of fetal development. I honestly find it hard to form an opinion on abortion but, until I do, I'll allow abortions up until the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. 2
points
1
point
1
point
I did not commit the strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Disagreement does not rqwual a fallacy. It is a FACT that most proaborts use dishonest tactics to defend the baby killers. He is the one who committed the strawman fallacy by ASSuming that prolifers do not care about unwanted children. You need to debate the facts. This is a debate site, not a proabort support group. 1
point
It is a FACT that most proaborts use dishonest tactics to defend the baby killers. No, that is not a fact. That is an opinion. He is the one who committed the strawman fallacy by ASSuming that prolifers do not care about unwanted children Which is just as much (or as little) of a strawman as you assuming that most prochoicers are dishonest, which is ironic, considering how dishonest the term "proabort" is. 1
point
Many pro-lifer individuals are also individuals who are in favor of policies that would actively harm the child after they were born, such as a decreased social safety net. And no, he was not using a strawman fallacy, he was making a generalization, something you have done as well. 1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
I'm actually looking for a little more than that. There are things people might consider wrong, yet not believe they should be illegal. Smoking, drinking, premarital sex, divorce, etc. (I'm sure can think of lots of them.) So, more than just wrong - do you think it should be illegal? And, if so, what kind of charges/sentencing would you like to see? Or, do you think women should choose not to get abortions, but, even if they do, they should not got to jail? Killing a baby before some arbitrary point in a pregnancy is premeditated murder. Murderer is subject to well established law and should be prosecuted. A reasonable justification for these murders is thought to exist in situations where the mother is likely to die if the baby is not killed. I support this unhappy exception. Strange how different the USA legal system has become compared to the English one in which it is based. In English law the child must have taken its first breath in be consider a 'person in being' that can fit the definition of murder. Illegal termination of a pregnancy is known as 'child destruction'. Even if a mother kills her child, so long as it is within the first 4 months of life, the charge is usually infanticide rather than murder. 1
point
We also allow killing when it is self-defense. (see debate here). What do you think of the argument that the principles of self-defense apply to abortion? 0
points
You proaborts are all the same. Unborn babies have the right to choose too. The unborn child is NOT paret of the mother's body.. I am prolife beccause of science, NOT RELIGION! / If you you don't want a baby, you are free to use contraception, place a child for adoption, parent, or abstain from sex. Prolifers are are only opposed to abortion because it kills a living child. Please show me scientific proof that PROVES that life begins at birth or that the baby is part of the mother;s body. The number of orphans is growing internationally and in the US. It does not make sense to suggest adoption as a solution when it in itself a serious problem. Unborn babies have the right to choose too. Unborn fetuses do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. In fact, even born infants do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. In fact, children in the US are not given that many choices because they are not considered "mature" enough to make the right decisions. The legal drinking age in the US is 21. The legal voting age is 18. The legal driving age is 16 and a half. That means voters and legislators do not trust a 20 year old adult enough to drink alcohol responsibly. They do not trust a 17 year old to vote responsibly. They do not trust a 16 year old to drive responsibly. If abortions are completely outlawed, that means voters will trust someone who cannot drive, vote, or drink to raise a child or put it up for adoption. They trust that this teenager who was not even responsible enough to use contraception will do what is needed for the pregnancy to ensure a healthy baby. It is not like you are suppose to change your diet 6 months before conception to ensure a healthy pregnancy... There are not many good scenarios available to this child. Both of his parents choose to keep it. It will be in a traditional family unit, with a high school drop out mom and a high school drop out dad. Dad runs. Mom keeps it. Single parent. Both run. Foster system. You are setting this child up for failure. Do you have any idea how many foster kids grow out of foster care? How many engage in narcotics or prostitution? How many graduate high school? Yeah. You saved his/her life so that it can suffer for 2 decades and then commit suicide or OD. There are worse things than death. Even if an anti-abortion bill is passed, there must be exceptions made for various circumstances. There you go lying and twisting facts like aa proabort would. Ad hominem. Many prolifers DSO care about children! Irrelevant. When you say otherwise, you are a liar. He didn't say that. The baby has the right tyo live and you have the right tto be honest or shut your face. You are ignoring the consequences of what you advocate. If we go with your idea but don't address the shortcomings it will fail. It is not an ad homenim to call out a liar. When he said that prolifers do not care about children, that was a dishonest strawman. Many prolifers DO ACTUALLY care about children. I am prolife and I care about chiuldren. I will be donating books and money to my local crisis pregnancy clinic,. I might even donate my time. It is sad how you defend a proabort. It is not an ad homenim to call out a liar. It is an ad hominem to make your argument that he is a liar like typical pro aborts. What is he lying about? When he said that prolifers do not care about children, that was a dishonest strawman. Many prolifers DO ACTUALLY care about children. I am prolife and I care about chiuldren I can't find where he said that. I will be donating books and money to my local crisis pregnancy clinic, Good. I might even donate my time. Great. It is sad how you defend a proabort. I am a proabort. I was simply pointing out how you are shortsighted. I am not committing a fallacy by calling out a dishonest proabort for lying. When proaborts say that prolifers do not care about children, they are committing the strawman fallacy. If that dishonest proabort can lie like that, I damn sure can call them out. Fact: Proaborts are very dishonest. The proabort said that prolifers do not care about children. It is a fallacy to call someone a liar when he didn't say a lie. He made a separate argument that did not have a lie in it. Regardless of how much he lied in previous arguments it is fallacious to say that because he lied somewhere else that his argument is invalid. Read the entire conversion. That's not how it works. Each argument stands on its own. You are smart, but I disagree with how you are getting upset like this. People are going to disagree. Just calm down. :) Twice I told you that I did not see where he lied to you in a calm manner. When I got upset with you you responded. You can disagree with me getting upset all you want, but it worked. So, you are ignoring my actual argument about the consequences of outlawing abortion because I committed an appeal to emotion fallacy earlier? Read the actual argument instead of that one liner which was just meant to draw attention to the subject of orphans. The mainstream politics only cares about the single act of abortion. There is no mention of the consequences of legalizing or prohibiting abortions. The only things that people seem to think of when they hear abortion is murdering babies. What about the entire life that comes after? The mainstream messaged does not care. Show proof that the political debate regarding abortion considers the current state of the orphans, single parents, ghetto cycles, and uneducated. Unplanned pregnancies happen the most in poor uneducated communities who do not have the resources to cope with a new baby. Children of poor communities have the worst outcomes, until you consider single parents tend to have the worst outcomes, until you consider orphans and foster kids. Show that the national discussion cares just as much about these issues as they do about murdering babies, then that will prove that I am a liar. The proof is the lack of discussion about issues other than the act of abortion/murder. I mean the US has the highest rate of childhood poverty in any developed country. Why is the uproar only over children in the womb? That is 9 months. Childhood poverty affects the rest of their lives. Maybe we could use the billions wasted on welfare. That's where the welfare money goes. Poor people with kids. Or perhaps the billions we are not spending on national defense. Sure there's lots of places we can cut. But should that mean we should kill babies, to save money and stress and all that hassle? So, defense is the only thing you wouldn't take money from? As long as the dead people are in another country you are all for paying for it? How many people have you converted to the pro life side by pretending that money doesn't matter? Look Cartman, you are drifting of your point by my sarcastic examples, meant to show you how killing babies to save money is wrongheaded. You said: " The number of orphans is growing internationally and in the US. It does not make sense to suggest adoption as a solution when it in itself a serious problem. Unborn fetuses do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. In fact, even born infants do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. In fact, children in the US are not given that many choices because they are not considered "mature" enough to make the right decisions." Do honestly not see a danger in the direction this thinking takes us. Here is a hint. At the end of the path you are advocating there sets a government "Death Panel" deciding who lives and who dies for the greater good of the budget? Actually that was my statement. There is no government involvement, you leave the choice up to the individual. There is no government mandated abortion. That means no death panels. Not sure why you think giving parents the choice means the government gets to decide. By banning abortions all together, you take the choice away from the prospective parents. When those parents are forced to raise the child before they complete their education or even turn 18 years old, they tend to end up on welfare for the rest of their lives. Their children are not raised properly and they end up on welfare and make bad life decisions that might even affect another generation. This is part of the ghetto cycle I was referring to. You know what would be even worse? The child gets put up for adoption. Then it is really screwed because that is arguably the largest disadvantage you can give to a baby in the United States. If the teenage parents use welfare, or their child grows up to use welfare, people like you complain that these people are mooching off the system when no one even bothered to give them a fair chance at life. By taking away their choice, you take away their future. OK. My mistake in inferring government involvement. Lets let the parents decide if they should keep or kill the baby. You said: In fact, even born infants do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. Then because a baby is unable to speak or communicate a choice to live, the parents should have the right to kill the baby if they choose. If they choose unwisely to keep the baby, the government NOW has to support it. Hmmm Now extend that thought, and tell me you don't see any problems. In fact, even born infants do not have the right to choose because they cannot communicate. This line was to explain to someone else why infants and fetuses are unable to choose. It shows how much faith and trust we put into the parents. The child is unable to communicate complex thoughts; so, society as a whole, not just the government, trusts the parents to take care of the child. This is true in almost every human culture. Why does the trust not extend to the pregnancy? The parents all of a sudden become trustworthy the moment the child is born, but not before? For your strawman. They don't need to kill the baby. They can just neglect it and it will die on its own. Infants are fragile. Very fragile. You are basically saying you don't trust the parents to be responsible for the child during pregnancy but will put the child's life into their hands after birth. How does that make sense? If you think the parents who want abortions are murderers, then you are basically trusting murderers to raise children. I am sure that will turn out well. All those parents who were forced to have kids will do the responsible thing and raise them accordingly. Definitely no other alternatives after birth. You have no idea what I am thinking because instead of thinking yourself you are sarcastically aborting everyone. The idea of abortion is bad, but the idea of sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything that other people say is terrible too. And thinking that there are too many orphans should lead someone who is pro life to the conclusion that we need to help orphans, not that orphans should be killed before they are born. This line of thinking that you say is default is only default to someone who doesn't want abortion. Isn't that odd. It is not about trouble for you or another voter or the government. The trouble is on the people who are forced to raise a child. The trouble falls onto the child who starts out with an enormous disadvantage. It is about the fact that there is no discussion about the consequences of forcing people to give birth and raise children. People can't see past the fact that this is labeled as murder. 1
point
The quote I posted was obviously from you - so, how does that warrant a "You proaborts are all the same." response? You proaborts are all the same. No one is the same. The unborn child is NOT paret[sic] of the mother's body Let it try to survive without it. Any thought on providing a response to here? 2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
It may be selfish or immoral, but should it be illegal? As I have said: "There are things people might consider wrong, yet not believe they should be illegal." And, as you have said: "someone can be personally opposed to something and still not force that belief on people" So the question is: should it be illegal? (and, if so, how long should the woman go to jail for?) 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sorry - I've tried to use understandable language for you, but this time I certainly failed. This might help in understanding inference. What I believe was being said by flewk was that contraception is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy - not that "their mother is too lazy to take a pill". 2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Some people make that choice, some don't. But when asked, you had said that if someone was brain dead, you would be okay with another person pulling the plug on them (I am guessing family), even though no mention of any DNR clause was made. So where is the distinction between that, someone who is living but without brain activity and incapable of consenting, and abortion within the first trimester? 1
point
So if someone is not responsible enough to use contraception, they should be punished? Forcing an irresponsible person to raise a child seems like a good idea. The child should be punished too. Why not have it be raised by a single irresponsible parent or thrown into foster care? If it wanted to be part of a traditional family unit, it should have avoided being fertilized. 1
point
The voter/government does not have to assume anything. The parent decides if they are ready or not to raise a child. The VG does not raise the child, why should the VG get a say? The statistics show how well an unplanned and unprepared parent does versus a planned parent. Single versus married. It is not like people who do not feel ready to raise a child always happen to do exceptionally well. 1
point
1
point
Of course. Most countries give the guardian the power of attorney in cases where the child is unable to communicate adequately. The parents/guardians can choose to terminate life support because that is their responsibility. You are pointing to the case of outright murder of a child by its parents. This is where legislation must be explicit since murder in any form is illegal in most countries. For the US, it is currently legal at the federal level to terminate the pregnancy at any time. That means it is illegal to kill the child after birth, at least until new legislation. Something that I mentioned in another topic comes to mind. As technology advances, so do rights. The gestation period required for viability has decreased as medical technology advanced. That means a fetus's "life" has been increasing for the last six decades according to certain US state laws. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
OK, I looked it up. I'm using the second definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ Now what? 1
point
1
point
2
points
That is, in my opinion, a rather pointless sentiment, as "politically correct" is a rather pointless term. It has come to mean just about anything to anyone, though almost always used in a negative context. Are you trying to say that you are just using the term "abortionist" to try to be derogatory? 1
point
1
point
I really don't want to spend much time on this so, here you go. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/ If it's not satisfactory to you, oh well. 1
point
1
point
If you make the claim, the onus is on you - whether you feel like doing it or not. Your argument will have little to no weight if it is solely based on your old man memory ;) In perusing old newspaper archives, court cases contemporaneous to Roe (including the Roe decision itself), etc. I found the term abortionist being used only to describe a person who performs abortions. At times "pro-abortionsit" and "anti-abortionist" were used similar to how pro-life or pro-choice would be used today. I found articles using pro-choice as early as mid 1977 with most of the etymology sites claiming its use back to 1975, though I didn't see any verifiable source. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Believe whatever you want That would make me you ;) I'm just saying you didn't dig deep enough. I'm saying you didn't. onus probandi 1
point
1
point
1
point
JD you do realize that you have been pestering Joe about something akin to "what the meaning of is is", right? I was there as well. The terms pro-abortionist and abortionist (as a contraction, creating the second definition referenced three days ago), where used interchangeably in everyday conservation. Much later, while trying to defend killing babies, the pro-abortionist / abortionist language was replaced with the "pro-choice" label to try and make killing babies sound more positive. ie "politically correct". Please desist in your pointless pursuit of minutiae. You ask what others thought the term meant. You got your responses. Were you simply looking for something to pounce on, or other opinion? 1
point
1
point
So if I were to give you a link, why would you tend to believe that? It has been my experience that you can find supporting evidence on the internet for practically anything. I told you that my comment was based on my experience. Dave backed me up: I was there as well. The terms pro-abortionist and abortionist (as a contraction, creating the second definition referenced three days ago), where used interchangeably in everyday conservation. You decided not to believe us. Great! I have no agenda. I gave my opinion and tried to move on. I don't care who believes me or not. There's no motivation on my part to back up my statement. 1
point
So if I were to give you a link, why would you tend to believe that? Not believing everything is different than not believing anything. It has been my experience that you can find supporting evidence on the internet for practically anything. Well, except for your claim of course... Dave backed me up Not exactly. Your claim was that the original term was "abortionist" - Dave's statement backs up that the original term was "pro-abortionist" as I posted earlier, and is what was used by deliberate speakers on the matter (newspapers, courts, etc.) If colloquially it later got shortened to abortionist (a term which was already in use for abortion practitioners), this indicates that there may have been reasons other than a PC makeover to change it - such as ease of conversational use. There's no motivation on my part to back up my statement. But there is apparently plenty of motivation to backup your lack of motivation. Your claim was that the original term was "abortionist" Oh, I see. We are arguing over the definition of the word, "original." Well, at the time, that was the only term I had heard. So it was original to me. ;) But there is apparently plenty of motivation to backup your lack of motivation. Well..., yeah.... it keeps the debate going ;) 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
The typical person on the street used the word "abortionist." The media may have used a more politically correct term but... About 10 years ago we had some heavy rains. There's a road with a big dip on the way to my home. It flooded. On a typical rainy day, I would gun it and splash through it. My kids loved it. But on this day, there was a television camera crew so I couldn't do that and get them all wet. So when I got home I told my wife to turn on the news because me and the kids may be on tv. Well, we were not on tv. The shot they took was so tight that you would swear people's homes were under water. Friends called and I had to reasure them that it was less than a foot and only in this one tiny part of the road with no houses near it. That's just me voicing my perception. That's my reality. The media's reality is arguably different. But they have an agenda. If you want the media's version, you look for it. I don't have an agenda. I don't care what you decide to believe. It will not affect my life. So how can that be construed as "an argument?" 1
point
The fact that enough people used the word abortionist (to describe a person who supports abortions) to warrant a dictionary entry is not irrelevant. Also, there was already a precedent. The word abolitionist was used to describe a person who supported abolition (not a person who performed an abolition). 1
point
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/ The primary definitions all seem to have a noticeable trend to them. But there were enough support for the second definition to have earned it a place on the dictionary. When look up the definition of a word, do you go by "trend" or by the definion the speaker probably intended based on context? Do you just go around discarding secondary definitions? Are you saying that for the purposes of debating, only first definitions apply? Maybe you just pick and chose definitions that suit your purposes. 2
points
If it was a secondary definition, that implies a significantly less common usage. Your implications were about widespread usage of a word, which would, theoretically, be backed up by some evidence. The evidence, however, indicates that the usage of the word in the context you are referring to is the minority. Less common? That depends on what part of the country you are from. Also, if the numbers were 51 vs 49 percent, then your argument is invalid. But even if the numbers are more drastic, you don't go around telling people that their word doesn't mean what they think it means because of "trend." 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I am confused as to what you mean. The only time I used the word trend, it was in regards to the primary definitions from sources I cited. Doing so did not imply that communities which employ the term "abortionist" in that context do not exist, though I did later question their size and location in response to claims you made. 1
point
But what difference does that make? If I proved to you that the numbers are substantial, then what? Are you going to reconsider that the percentage of people who are against abortion is roughly 50%? Are you going to reconsider that there are a lot more people out there who don't give a crap about political correctness and have no problem using the word as I have described? Are you going to reconsider and decide to be offended by that word or not be offended by that word? I mean, WTFing difference does it make? 1
point
1
point
Not at all. I have been here for over 6 years. I can barely count the number of times anyone changed anyone's mind about anything on this site on one hand. If you are looking for self benefit, go to the library and get a self-help book or get a college education. Trying to better yourself on an online site is questionable, at best. 1
point
1
point
I was asking you to participate in a debate, in accordance with the burden of proof that exists in a debate. If you are not seeking self benefit, I fail to see how the fact that it does not benefit you has any relevance to this conversation. If you are here to debate, I fail to see why you would refuse to do so. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Abortionist was the original term before the abortionists realized that doesn't sound good so they coined the phrase, "Pro-Choice" which was still not as good as "Pro-Life" because it means that they are selfish (i.e., would rather forfeit someone else's life in order to have a choice). 2
points
Abortionist was the original term As we have already established - no, it wasn't. Presumably you mean to say that it was a preceding term rather than the original. they coined the phrase "Pro-Choice" I already posted that a reporter with the Wall Street Journal coined the term. I believe he was a bit left of what would have been the political center of the time, but was not part of the PR team for the pro-abortion movement. "Pro-Choice" which was still not as good as "Pro-Life" Pro-choice was coined before pro-life selfish Is self-defense selfish? What's the difference between preceding and original? When the whole Roe vs Wade trial went down in 1973, there were some very heated debates. Anti-abortionists, as they were called at the time (by the common folk) called the otherside abortionists (probably cause it was easier to say than pro-abortion). By the time the liberal media realized how hot this topic was, they came out with the term pro-choice. The anti-abortion crowd felt they were losing the war on words and coined the term pro-life. If you want to believe any other version, then by all means. I gain nothing from you beliving me. Wait, I just realized something. Are you arguing that pro-choice came before pro-life? Because I am arguing that abortionist came before pro-choice. Is that the misunderstanding? 2
points
What's the difference between preceding and original? Wow - really? Imagine counting 1, 2, 3 1 would be the original number (and the loneliest number you could ever do) 2 would precede 3, but is not the original number (though, 2 can be as bad as one - it's the loneliest number since the number 1) 3's company (and the number of dog night's) I am arguing that abortionist came before pro-choice. And I'm arguing that pro-abortionist came before abortionist. 1
point
Um - http://www.google.com/ And "To the Editor: The conviction in Boston of Dr. Kenneth Edelin of manslaughter of a fetus during a legal abortion should help dispel pro-abortionist claims that abortion is no longer an issue in either American society as a whole or in the medical community in particular." New York Times - Letters to the Editor, Feb 27, 1975 - (may require a subscription) Think this search can be used without a subscription. 1
point
Pfft, says you. Abortionist had been in use for a long time, to refer to one who performs abortions. But by 1973 that changed and it was used to refer to people who support abortions. It was a derogatory term (maybe that's why you object to this whole thing so much). Anyway, the term was in use enough to make it into the dictionary. What can I say, word usage in language tends to change over time. Look at the word "gay." It originally was used to mean lighthearted and carefree. ;) 1
point
But by 1973 that changed and it was used to refer to people who support abortions. Pfft, says you. the term was in use enough to make it into the dictionary. How soon you forget. That it eventually made it into a dictionary says nothing of when it did so. My unabridged Webster's from 1994 does not include that definition. 1
point
As far as I am concerned, pro-abortionist and abortionist are the same. which is why I was confused when you used the word 'preceding.' I was thinking, when you have 2 options, how can there be a preceding? The only point I was trying to make was that pro-choice came later. So..., yeah, I can see where pro-abortionist was contracted to abortionist. I don't have a problem a problem with that. BTW, I thought Daver supported my statement that pro-choice came later. Please desist in your pointless pursuit of minutiae. 1
point
As far as I am concerned, pro-abortionist and abortionist are the same. Indeed I think that was your confusion. Abortionist was used historically to refer only to those who perform abortions - not as the contracted version of pro-abortionist to refer to their supporters. 1: abortionist = practitioners 2: pro-abortionist = supporters 3: abortionist = lazy colloquial usage for supporters even though the word was already being used for a different group 4: pro-choice = coined by reporter with WSJ, later chosen by supporters; likely influenced some by PC, but also because the current words were so inadequate Using that series of events shows how it would precede yet isn't the original - though I'll note that we still have no evidence that 3 was being used before 4. I thought Daver supported my statement that pro-choice came later. Daver's comment supports that pro-abortionist was used before abortionist to refer to the supporters of abortion. The only point I was trying to make was that pro-choice came later. And that it was for political correctness - so I created a debate here for that. Please desist in your pointless pursuit of minutiae. Right back at ya. Dude, I tried to make a simple statement, abortionist came before pro-choice and you took me to the mat for using the word "original" (minutiae). You wanted to point out that pro-abortionist came before abortionist? And you are still arguing that the term abortionist is a lazy colloquial usage for supporters even though the dictionary clearly states that the second definition of abortionist is a person who supports abortions (more minutiae). The dictionary doesn't say anything about "lazy colloquial usage for supporters." You are also still arguing that the word was already being used for a different group as though that matters (more minutiae). Gay was already being used by another group before that homosexual community appropriated it. I don't know. Maybe you're a perfectionist? And English teacher? Hate the word abortionist being used to describe pro-choice? Who knows? 1
point
2
points
The terms used by the common folk, before the liberal media chaned it, were anti-abortion and abortionist or pro-abortion. If you don't want to believe me, that's you perogative. Abortionist was coined before pro-choice and that is why that definition appears in the dictionary. Let me ask you a question, if it had been way back then, in the 70's before political correctness, and you got involved in an abortion debate, would you call the other guy pro-life? Or would you have used more colorful language in the heat of the debate were there were no smart phones to debate with and no editing your words after the fact? You wouldn't have called the other side bigots, or idiots, or jerks, or ass holes? Abortionist was a derogatory term and it was freely used by the people. The media had to tone it down. They couldn't have used that language. 1
point
The terms used by the common folk, before the liberal media chaned it, were anti-abortion and abortionist or pro-abortion. If you don't want to believe me, that's you perogative. Abortionist was coined before pro-choice and that is why that definition appears in the dictionary. It isn't a matter of if I want to believe you or not, it is a matter of you not providing evidence that it is true. would you call the other guy pro-life? No, I would call them anti-abortion, and, for lack of a better term, would call the other side pro-abortion. Abortionist was a derogatory term and it was freely used by the people. So you are claiming then that the original term was derogatory? That a derogatory term originated before the "pro" term? 1
point
Look at the link I posted. The usage I described is in the dictionary and is correct. If an abortionist is pro-choice, anti-abortionists would be pro-life. The people using that term would be abortionists, which are pro-choice. Which would make the pro-choice people the dolts. The pro-life people call themselves anti-abortion which means that they are not lazy dolts who can't be bothered to add the word "anti." 1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
To me? Well, I'd say it's a few things. First, I think it possibly is someone who has acceptance towards abortion. I don't think they necessarily have to like the action, but are willing to tolerate it and believe that it's the right of the child bearer to decide on the operation. Secondly, I believe it means that abortion is alright, as in the person takes a stance as is in full support for a woman's right to an abortion. I'd say this sums up most of society. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Why would someone be personally against killing babies, yet believe its OK if someone else does it. Such an important issue carries much more significance than preferences in ice cream flavors, or what shade of lipstick looks best. Pro-choice sounds less controversial than pro-abortion. The term was chosen by the pro-abortion side of the issue, and they own it. Don't be confused by clever word games, they mean pro-abortion. If I had a feotus inside me i would be personally against aborting it but understand thst this is only my feeling. I cannot justify why it would be wrong for someone else to abort without using circular reasoning. Therfore i do not support policies that prohibit it. Furthermore, even if abortion is immoral this does not necessarily mean that someone should be dealt with as a criminal for doing it. There are many immoral things that we all do every day that are not the subject of criminal punishment. You call it thw killing of a human being. I wrote a reply to you before that addressed this that you never replied to. 'Killing' a fetus is fundamentally different to killing a born iindividual. The contextual reasons why killing is wrong is not present when terminating a fetus. You can use the term killing a living person if you want but it doesnt really fit the phenomenon of abortion. 2
points
A fetus not being a person is your presupposition. You obviously are not well informed of philosophical matters. If the fetus is a person then abortion is essentially murder- the killing of an innocent person. Research a little before you make baseless assertions. And to apply terms such as killing to a person but terminate to a fetus shows your partiality. Abortion is killing a fetus (and must be so as a fetus is a living entity). (Note: I understand terminate can be used when describing abortion, I just pointed out your sophistic nomenclature to help validate your stance isn't being impartial.) A fetus not being a person is your presupposition No shit. So it calling a fetus a person. obviously are not well informed of philosophical matters. If the fetus is a person then abortion is essentially murder- the killing of an innocent person. It's hilarious how you are dyslexic and, by your own admission, often use the wrong word but yet the majority of your arguments are about semantics. Suppose it is good for your ego because at the end if you lose an argument you can just say you were using a different definition to the one you first intended. Nope it doesn't have to be considered murder even we called them a person. It is not so simplistic. ns. And to apply terms such as killing to a person but terminate to a fetus shows your partiality More semantics. Does it make you hot? I don't give a shit what words you like me using and which you don't. Terminate is the most appropriate word. 2
points
No shit. So it calling a fetus a person. Pointless statement as I have not called the fetus a person. It is you who implied that the fetus was not a person. Secondly, if it's a "no shit" statement then you wouldn't have asserted such a contentious notion...? It's hilarious how you are dyslexic and, by your own admission, often use the wrong word but yet the majority of your arguments are about semantics. Suppose it is good for your ego because at the end if you lose an argument you can just say you were using a different definition to the one you first intended. It's a shame how you resort to ad hominems - albeit false ones - instead of attending to my argument. Nope it doesn't have to be considered murder even we called them a person. It is not so simplistic. Can you speak in a manner that an English teacher would to save further clarifications. Anyway, if you consider the fetus a person then it would entail murder in the act of intentionally killing one. To say otherwise suggests that a fetus cannot somehow be innocent. More semantics. Does it make you hot? I don't give a shit what words you like me using and which you don't. Terminate is the most appropriate word. Again, you have failed to realize my contention of your use in terms. It's not so much semantics per se, rather the act of sophistry. Also, "kill" is just as appropriate for the situation. You used "terminate" to make the act of killing an unborn child seem less negative, but you then used the term kill applying it to a person to exacerbate the matter (this is signs of a debater expressing his incompetence). 2
points
I'm always winning and you make it so easy. Expressing your inability to respond to a complicated argument in which you see inevitable defeat. But I usually run into that a lot. P.S. Do not for one second think that I don't notice how you didn't respond to my arguments where I illustrated precisely your erroneous assertions. I guess that's your style huh? Book it when you see defeat and pretend as though it never happened. Or you just ignore my argument entirely and just attack with me with my "dyslexia" as if that will frustrate me and distract me from my argument. But, as a failure would, you fail at doing so. Perhaps you issue such attacks to deter others and make them find your statements rather amusing; though I hardly believe they do, you know you are incapable of attending to my argument which is all that matters. As a self-proclaimed English teacher/law grad/medical student I would expect a bit more intelligence and maturity- and though you may practice these disciplines it does not entail either or (which would explain your case). You supplement my ego by expressing inferiority. Aside from that, quite frankly, you are pathetic. 2
points
Also, you openly stated that killing/murder is an improper ascribtion to abortion. Essentially you are implicitly presupposing that the fetus is not a person yet you say "no shit" but you don't even understand yourself as your argument is self-defeating given your presupposition. It's equivalent to saying "no shit I'm wrong" and for obvious reasons such a statement would be unintelligible, which in your case wouldn't surprise me. You initiated the semantic aspect of this subcategory of a semantic debate (as the title implies) I only interjected to point out your fallacious/erroneous argument. And perhaps if you believed semantics to be so boring you would not: 1) Engage in semantic discourse (e.g. "What does a word (pro-choice) mean?"; or 2) within that semantic debate bring up even more semantics (I.e. killing/murder). I'm with you personally as well. I could/would not kill my own unborn child. Extending this to others, is not a stretch for me, because of the extreme consequence of abortion. IMO a pregnant woman is temporally responsible for two lives. Soooooo can't mess with that for convince or due to lack of preparation. I do however recognize the dilemma surrounding death of the mother, rape, incest, or extreme deformity. 1
point
It's true that people who are pro-life are also anti-choice because they think it is wrong for everyone to get an abortion. They don't want other people to have the choice to abort at all. But being pro-choice is not equivalent with being pro-abortion because that would insinuate that there are people who actually like abortion and want it to happen, which isn't true. 1
point
No one is "pro-abortion" because that would indicate the desire to terminate pregnancies. People who are pro-choice realize that sometimes an abortion is a necessary action to be taken in the course of a pregnancy. People who are pro-choice understand that we each have our own body sovereignty and shouldn't be telling each other what to do with our own bodies. I don't see it so much as telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I see it more like telling people to be responsible, mature, adults... to have control over their bodies and desires... and to take responsibility for their actions, because a life may depend on it. 1
point
Maybe, but the rest still applies. BTW, I wouldn't go around aborting trees nor jelly fish either. A life is a life. I mean, imagine if someone decided that the life of a homeless person wasn't worth as much as Obama's life (poor misguided soul for thinking that). I bet now you're going to accuse me of not being a Democrat. BTW, I wouldn't go around aborting trees nor jelly fish either. So you've never killed an organism in your entire life? You've never used lysol to wipe a counter? Because it kills 99% of germs. You've never eaten fruit, which has seeds that could have become a new tree. You've never killed an insect because it's in your home minding its own business but it's considered a pest? That argument is ridiculous. "Take responsibility for your actions!" "But we used a condom properly- it's only 99% effective." "Take responsibility for your actions!" "We were safe and this pregnancy wasn't supposed to happen. I can't bring this child into the world because I work minimum wage and have 2 other children and the adoption homes are already overrun with children looking for homes." "Take responsibility!" "My child's bones are literally breaking in my uterus. I don't want it to suffer anymore. And even if it did come to term, it would only live for a few days at most, the entire time in extreme pain." Nobody has abortions late in the pregnancy, unless it's a medical necessity or emergency. Abortions are performed before the fetus even has a heartbeat usually, and always before brain waves exist. You can't force a woman to carry a child to term because it's not your life, it's not your decision to make. Well that escalated quickly. I never said, "No abortions, under ANY circumstance." Let me ask you a question. Have you ever set foot inside an abortion clinic? I have. I took my girlfriend there and waited for her. You know what I saw? Many young girls who were either alone (dropped off at the curb by presumably their boyfriend), or with their mother or their (I'm guessing) best friend. Had they followed the advice I gave above, it "could have" prevented their situation. It certainly would not have hurt. I may be wrong but it feels like the pro-choice people are like, "Hey don't worry, go out and have a good time. If you do get pregnant, just have an abortion. No big deal. Don't let those asshole pro-lifers keep you from enjoying your life. You're young, feel alive, be impulsive, make mistakes, we won't hold you responsible. We've got your back so go out and have fun, get drunk, get laid. But don't drink and drive or we'll hold your feet to the fire." 1
point
1
point
1
point
You said that I have not changed my view point. That implies that know what my view point is, otherwise how would you know if I have changed it? All I'm trying to do now is to verify that you indeed know what my view point is. If not, then you can't make the statement that I have not changed my view point. That's all. 1
point
If I wanted lots of points, I would have kept using the old account. Are claiming to be able to read my mind and that's how you know my view point? But the ability to read my mind somehow prevents you from divolging that information? I'm not against bisexuals. Why would I be against bisexuals? If I were against bisexuals, I would have a chance at a threesome and I would really like to have a threesome. But I would be remis if I didn't clarify that I mean a threesome with 2 other girls. 1
point
1
point
This isn't about protecting young women who want to use abortion as a form of birth control, it's about providing legal protection to women who need to abort. Pro-choice people aren't trying to protect the occasional woman who misuses the system. They are protecting the women who really need the procedure- both from legal harm and from physical harm. The truth is that 80% of women report not feeling depressed after their abortion. They believe this was the right decision for them and they likely would have sought out termination with or without its legality. Being pro-choice means supporting this difficult decision with a safe and legal option instead of a coat hanger and a court sentence. 1
point
I never said I was against abortion. As far as I'm concerned, it's God's job. He's the one who is supposedly against abortion. Let Him deal with it. If you find yourself at the pearly gates and you can't get in because your a gay male who decided to get an abortion, that's your problem. Hopefully heaven is pretty much empty so I can get some peace and quiet. Now I bet you're going accuse me of not being religious. 1
point
Pro choice actually means pro death. Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, said that it was her goal to erratic blacks in this country through abortion. Ever notice that most abortion clinics are in poor black neighborhoods? This is intentional. More black baby's are aborted than carried to term. How sad is that? I would say that Sanger is laughing her ass off, but I'm certainshe's in hell. No laughing going on there. 2
points
Pro choice actually means pro death. About as much as saying pro life actually means pro slavery. Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, said that it was her goal to erratic blacks in this country through abortion. Which really is entirely irrelevant to the organization now. Ever notice that most abortion clinics are in poor black neighborhoods? This is intentional Do you have a statistic to back that up? More black baby's are aborted than carried to term. Or that? 2
points
Indeed I can, which is why I know that only 9% of Planned Parenthood (the single largest abortion provider in the United States) are located in areas that are predominantly black. Maybe you should make claims that have a factual basis? Edit: By the way, that's a pretty funny little down-vote tantrum you are on. Well then. Blacks are traveling a long way to get their abortions. Aren't they? According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population2 but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009. The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total. Margaret Sanger would be proud. 1
point
1
point
How is she irrelevant? Are you saying that planned parenthood does not still follow in her footsteps? Are you really that stupid? And here we are, back to your insults in lieu of actual arguments. Tell me: If Planned Parenthood really was following in her footsteps, why are they not opening more clinics in poor black areas? Why would less than 10% of their locations be in the areas that you are claiming they want to impact the most? Here's a rebuttal for your supposed evidence. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/ Be sure to take a look at the interactive map that shows the locations of abortion clinics. Planed parenthood is just as racist as its always been. Why do you think a small minority is responsible for over thirty percent of all abortions? Numbers don't lie. Blacks are being targeted for extermination, and you're still an idiot. 2
points
So what we have is evidence that most abortion clinics are not in minority communities and less than 10% are located in predominantly black communities, but they are located in places that can reach out to multiple communities. Oh, how evil of them. Why do you think a small minority is responsible for over thirty percent of all abortions? Women of lower socio-economic status are far more likely to have an abortion. Black women are far more likely to have a lower socio-economic status than any other ethnicity. But it seems you aren't looking for legitimate possibilities. 1
point
Prove it. You can't. Hell is mentioned in the Bible. The Bible has been shown to be a reliable historical record. I know you atheists deny that. You say it's full of errors, yet one knowledgeable in Scripture can always show how the Bible is actually correct. Or at least raise a credible doubt about your ignorant attacks. 2
points
Prove it. You can't. Hell is mentioned in the Bible. You can't prove that Hell exists, either. The Bible has been shown to be a reliable historical record What are you basing that on? Where is the evidence of the Great Flood? You say it's full of errors, yet one knowledgeable in Scripture can always show how the Bible is actually correct. One who is knowledgeable in Scripture can not prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science can prove that it isn't, however. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It is a medical fact that life begins at conception. There is no longer any serious debate about that. Pro choicers simply claim that that life has no value. Who are they to decide? After all, their mothers didn't abort them. I'm sure they're happy to be alive. Millions of babies were denied that opportunity. I'm sure they're happy to be alive. Millions of babies were denied that opportunity. I wasn't aborted. Am I happy about that? No, I'm ambivalent because if I were aborted, I wouldn't even have known about it! Do you really think that the millions of babies "denied that opportunity" are going to be born into loving homes with a caring parent or two? Happy couples who can afford to raise a baby would not have the same desire to abort a fetus as a single woman who can barely afford to keep herself alive. 1
point
It is a medical fact that life begins at conception. There is no longer any serious debate about that. There is a lot of debate about that, as people disagree philosophically on what constitutes life. Declaring your opinions and beliefs to be indisputable fact is just lazy. Pro choicers simply claim that that life has no value No, they claim that life begins at a different time than you claim. After all, their mothers didn't abort them. I'm sure they're happy to be alive. Millions of babies were denied that opportunity It's not as if those that were aborted would be "unhappy". I see nothing but strawman arguments here. It really is a medical fact that life begins at conception. Ask any doctor. But here is something you can't dispute, since it is based on actual statistics. Women who get abortions are several times more likely to commit suicide. That, by itself, should be reason enough to ban it, except when the mothers life is in danger. Also, women who have their babies are LESS likely to commit suicide. Guess people like you don't care about the mothers either. Pathetic. 1
point
I see nothing but strawman arguments here. Point out a single one. It really is a medical fact that life begins at conception. Repeating yourself in no way contradicts what I previously said. But here is something you can't dispute, since it is based on actual statistics. Women who get abortions are several times more likely to commit suicide. Then provide the statistics. Guess people like you don't care about the mothers either. Pathetic. Yeah, obviously I don't, which is why I believe that the mother should have the choice, should be provided significantly more maternity leave than this country gives, and should be provided more government assistance when financially unstable. Attacking others and being dishonest is generally an indication of the weakness of one's arguments. 1
point
0
points
Pro choice once meant having the right to choose sane things. This extreme Left wanted some words that did not sound so barbaric, so rather than Pro abortion, they like the more palatable Pro choice. It all means the same thing. To be pro choice (other than extreme cases) means you have the humanity of animals. You are fake and a fraud to try and say you would personally not kill your baby (because it is taking an innocent life), but would afford other's the choice to KILL THEIR BABIES! Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself? God? Try being honest to who you are just once in your life. 0
points
To be pro choice (other than extreme cases) means you have the humanity of animals. There are countless examples of animals who are actually more socially conscious, sentient and empathetic than a human fetus. If your obsession with abortion is rooted in empathy rather than mere robotic indoctrination, than you must value sentience above all else because it is the ending of a sentient life or bringing upon it the experience of pain which you are objecting to. Why then do you not speak out against animal cruelty or about the countless dogs who are euthanized for human convenience? A fully grown dog is objectively more aware and capable of feeling pain than a fetus, particularly in early stages of development when a fetus is not even sentient or capable of feeling pain but even in later stages of development. Why do you obsess constantly about this one issue and never talk about animals, or even adult humans who are being treated inhumanely? It's because you're a mindless hypocrite without a drop of genuine empathy in your body. You are a retarded fucking parrot ranting about one issue as if it is the only issue in the world. |
