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.
Being that abortion is a debate with so many varying opinions on the beginning of life, the sanctity of life, and the rights of women, it's a disservice to everyone to polarize it into two non-exclusive positions.
I object to the terms, because they are too emotionally loaded. I personally don't like abortion and I believe everyone should have a right to life. however I believe that a woman has dominion over her body and all its contents. Plus most of these so called "pro-lifers" are such hypocrites. Many of them are the same ones who want to limit access to contaception and proper sex education (which would would lead to less unwanted pregnancies). They are also mostly people who want to cut all these socail programs to help support the child.
I think there is ambiguity in the term which leads to the problem. Some of its adherents believe it means preferring life and some think it means banning abortion.
The term "pro-life" only denotes per se that life is to be preferred, and technically says nothing about its legality. This is exactly the confusion I am seeking to illuminate.
There is no ambiguity to the terms. "Pro-life" is the result of a deliberate semantic maneuver to give anti-abortionists a seeming moral high-ground on the issue (it implies that pro-abortionists are anti-life). "Pro-choice" was the semantic counter-maneuver to give pro-abortionists the seeming moral high-ground on the issue (it implies that anti-abortionists are anti-choice).
If you are anti-abortion because you prefer life, then you are still anti-abortion; the life preference is simply your rationale. If you are pro-abortion because you prefer choice, then you are still pro-abortion; the choice preference is simply your rationale. Generally speaking, both sides are hypocritical with respect to their life/choice "preferences", but the labeling was never about accuracy to begin with so it goes to figure.
The etymology of a word is not dispositive of whether the word's meaning is ambiguous among the general public.
If you are anti-abortion morally, you can still believe that the ultimate choice should be legal for a woman to make - thus fitting descriptions for both pro-life and pro-choice.
The etymology of a word is not dispositive of whether the word's meaning is ambiguous among the general public.
I know that. I just do not think that the general confusion of ignorant sheep fundamentally alters what is actually a rather quite apparent meaning (i.e. the terms themselves are not any more ambiguous than are the words "objective" and "subjective", for all that most people do not know their actual meaning). Put another way: I guess I simply do not care if it is "ambiguous" to the general public, since that really has not much bearing on a more intellectually elevated discussion of whether the terms are dichotomous.
If you are anti-abortion morally, you can still believe that the ultimate choice should be legal for a woman to make - thus fitting descriptions for both pro-life and pro-choice.
I never disagreed with that. My post tallied to the "no" side by default of my rebuttal to you. That being said, I find it difficult for pro-choice/pro-life to be considered any kind of dichotomy (true or false) since they do not actually represent opposites of each other (i.e. there is no anti-choice or anti-life). The actual dichotomy would be anti-abortion/pro-abortion, and I would contend that that is a false dichotomy since it neglects the possibility of being morally anti-abortion but legally pro-abortion.
the terms themselves are not any more ambiguous than are the words "objective" and "subjective"
The terms actually are ambiguous (probably deliberately so). The words Pro-life and Pro-choice could, by themselves, mean nearly anything whether related to abortion or not. Even regarding abortion, Pro-choice is ambivalent with respect to legality and the same could be said of pro-choice and morality.
The rest is largely the "semantic argument with the debate title" that I thought Atrag was going to present earlier - I think the question in the description is enough to clarify.
PS - I think even if you click Dispute, you can change the side you support - with Clarify you're on your own... ;)
The terms actually are ambiguous (probably deliberately so). The words Pro-life and Pro-choice could, by themselves, mean nearly anything whether related to abortion or not.
Except that my post was not about the terms by themselves, but in the context of abortion. In fact, I think the reality that you did not even need to use the term abortion for this to have become an abortion debate speaks to to the non-ambiguity of the pairing of the two.
Even regarding abortion, Pro-choice is ambivalent with respect to legality and the same could be said of pro-choice and morality.
Not really. They both tend to presume a parallel between the legal and moral, much as pro-/anti-abortion does, largely owing to the reality that most people view laws as the formalization of morality (even if they would not express it that way).
The rest is largely the "semantic argument with the debate title" that I thought Atrag was going to present earlier - I think the question in the description is enough to clarify.
I do not think it is an argument with the debate title, so much as it is with the existence of the pro-choice/pro-life "dichotomy" to begin with. The notion, as I stated, that you cannot have any form of dichotomy for two things which are not actually opposed.
PS - I think even if you click Dispute, you can change the side you support - with Clarify you're on your own... ;)
You can. Thanks for the clarify, but I know how it works. (That sounds passive aggressive when typed, but I mean the thanks bit.) I just genuinely do not care enough to give it my full attention with every post, and sometimes let it default to whatever it is.
the reality that you did not even need to use the term abortion for this to have become an abortion debate speaks to to the non-ambiguity of the pairing of the two
Right, they are ubiquitously (and ambiguously) used by the laity when discussing abortion, but you specifically mentioned that you didn't care what the "ignorant sheep" thought of their meaning.
They both tend to presume a parallel between the legal and moral
Doesn't "tend to presume" signify some ambiguity?
I do not think it is an argument with the debate title, so much as it is with the existence of the pro-choice/pro-life "dichotomy" to begin with.
The question in the description does not mention dichotomy, only the title.
I think all of the learned folks who have spent time on the issue will, of course, agree that it is not a dichotomy - therefore, when it is presented as such, it is a false dichotomy. My target for the debate is more for people who have succumbed to the idea that they are mutually exclusive in order to break down that assumption. I know you will aid in that cause with aplomb.
Bloody hell. I am clearly too tired to be doing this debate thing. I am absolutely talking myself in circles on this one. The long and short: I think many/most people are ignorant and rather incapable of grasping the politics behind the pro-choice/pro-life semantic maneuver, but that nevertheless the maneuver is pretty evident. They think that one is either one or the other, when in actuality they are not even the right terms for discussing the issue of abortion to begin with (and even if they were, they would still be falsely dichotomous). Basically, I think we actually agree on this and I have just been going about my explanations a bit haphazardly. Sorry about that.
Technically the meanings of the terms are not a false dichotomy, the terms are just labeled oddly.
Pro-life is actually referring to the life of the fetus. It's an emotional stance, emotionally titled. Instead of saying, I'm opposed to women's rights, or I'm opposed to abortions, the position is basically saying I am in favor of the fetus living. I'd say that for most though, the term is used incorrectly, seeing as if the mother's life is in danger, most Pro-Life supporters will quickly switch sides saying things basically equating to "If the mother's life is in danger then it is okay to kill the child".
Now on to Pro-Choice. That term actually refers to be a proponent of a woman's choice (not of what to do with her body, don't be fooled) simply of whether she wants to choose abortion or not. This is a legal standpoint more than emotional. These people stand on their side, and label it as such because they believe legally a woman should be allowed to choose what to do with her body (in this particular case pertaining to abortion).
Finally I'll say what I say on all of the abortion debates. These terms they don't highlight the actual issue, well enough for two sides to oppose one another. How the hell is Pro-Life naturally opposite of Pro-Choice? The answer is, it's not, these are warped labels for viewpoints that need to be separately defined to understand, and separately argued if they truly are what those who choose the side, are choosing.
The terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, should be ditched in favor of the terms Pro/Anti- abortion. Maybe just to clarify it even further, Pro/anti legal abortion option. With that, the points actually being argued are clear cut. If one is pro abortion (pro legal abortion option) they support abortions being legal. If one is anti abortion(anti abortion legal option) they are opposed to abortions being legal.
It is only then do we even really have an argument on the same wavelength.
I agree with a lot you mention here. I agree that they are not dichotomous - therefore, if they are presented as a dichotomy, it would be a false one. (that's the only reason I clicked Dispute rather than Support)
I probably should just have used the question in the description as both the title and the description since several people have unfortunately gotten caught up with the title, much to my chagrin.
I agree that the terms often get in the way - I find that people who consider themselves on one "side" or the other generally agree on almost everything.
Theyre the only options worth considering. Of course theyre not the only options, you could be pro-birth babies prematurely and dye them purple. Doesnt mean thats even on the table. The law has split the argument into choice or ban so those are the only real options
I disagree. I cannot be prolife and think that abortion should be legal. Prolifers want to ban abortion. Prochoicers do not. Therefore, it is not a false dichotomy.
I don't think that is always the case - "prolifers" may just want to reduce abortions without necessarily using the government for enforcement. Not everything people think is immoral is something they think should be illegal.
Especially when one considers that: "Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."
and "Each year 47,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortion, accounting for 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide."
- copied from my debate here with FromWithin which may have other useful issues to consider - he seems to have stopped responding to it, so feel free to comment there too if you wish.
Prochoicers do not. Therefore, it is not a false dichotomy.
If a person is personally against abortion and would not get one themselves, but does not think a person who gets an abortion should go to jail for it, they may be both pro-life and pro-choice. This does not have to be your opinion - just an opinion that rational people can have in order to say that it is a false dichotomy.
To clarify - the debate has nothing to do with my opinion (or your opinion) on abortion, only whether some people reasonably can have an opinion which combines elements of both pro-life and pro-choice. For instance a person who finds it morally objectionable and would not get an abortion themselves and would advocate that others likewise refrain, but thinks government intervention is not proper (e.g. not constitutional, not effective, increases other harms/risks, etc.)
Thank you very much. Did you get a chance to check out this debate as well? Should I create a separate one with the same questions, but for you rather than for FromWithin? I would be interested in your opinions.
I don't know if you got this from my post but... I describe myself as both. I believe it is often an immoral choice to abort a feotus but I believe in a woman's right to choose to be immoral.
Not sure I have seen your post on it, but it is something I have run into several times most recently with Dana - thought I would create it as a debate on its own.
For a second your post switched to the Yes side, but now it is back under No.
Yes I switched briefly believing you when you said I posted on the wrong side.
I'll bite: why not?
Well, here we just call it responding to an on-topic argument made on your own debate. But yeah whatever.
If you don't want the woman and the doctor to be arrested, then you are Pro-Choice even if you would prefer they choose life...
*
Right. I am pro-choice because I don't want people to be arrested for abortions. I am pro-life because I believe it is wrong for people to make the choice to abort. I already said this though. Did you not want to read my first post?
You have said twice now that you consider yourself both, yet you are answering the question "Can a person be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time?" with "No".
I understand that, and it makes sense, but it really muddies the water when it comes to what the terms stand for politically. I'd ask (but I know the answer because you gave it) what is your stance, should abortion be legal or should it be illegal. After receiving your answer the side you stand on is the side you would be politically, and there'd be no confusion as to what bill you may be voting on in the next upcoming election. In this specific case, you are Pro-Abortion, or rather a proponent of legal abortions. The life of the fetus, albeit important to some, is of no concern when deal with the issue of whether or not the act of aborting it should be legal or not. I mean it's important if you consider it a life, and a life that should not be taken like any other, but it's not important to what you'll be debating, or voting on, which is legal or illegal abortions.
If one thinks that abortion is wrong, it makes no sense to be prochoice, but that is my view. I respect whatever you believe and look forward to debating you.
He explained it to you and you said you understood LOL. He did make a comment on whether it was a false dichotomy. He used an analogy. Maybe if you find the other short plank you might be able to work that out next time :)
You have also said that you believe mercy killing and self-defense other than to protect one's life should be legal - do you think these legal exceptions should apply to abortion as well?
One can believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that they have no right to force their moral opinion on other people through the law and thus support legalized abortions.
One could believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also believe that making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion but drives it onto the black-market and thus support legalization for the purpose of regulation and control over an inevitability.
