CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
27
Prolifers Prochoicers
Debate Score:66
Arguments:68
Total Votes:69
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Prolifers (31)
 
 Prochoicers (20)

Debate Creator

SitaraMusica(536) pic



Who has the moral high ground?

I used to be prochoice until I saw a picture of a baby that was born at 15 weeks. He looked so human. Which side are you on?

Prolifers

Side Score: 39
VS.

Prochoicers

Side Score: 27

BOTH sides have the moral high ground within their own moral framework. The difference comes down fundamentally to the value and rights assigned to a pregnant woman vs a fertilized egg at various stages of development. For that matter, there is some division on both sides regarding the value and rights in question, the stage of development they begin to apply to, and the extent to which they apply to any given stage of development.

Posted on both sides as there is no 'neither/both' option.

Side: Prolifers
Atrag(5666) Banned
2 points

I believe abortion is a very sad and arguably immoral choice to make. However, I also recognise that I can't force women to behave morally and that abortion is a necessary evil. Does that make me prolife or prochoice? I think it makes me both.

Side: Prolifers

Fair enough. I used to be prochoice. I guess my question is what about the choice of the baby? I await your response.

Side: Prolifers
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
2 points

The baby/fetus doesn't get to make a choice, because the baby/fetus does not have the capacity to make a choice.

As an (imperfect) comparison: A 16 year old doesn't get to vote in a US presidential election, despite the fact that the decision affects hir. S/he does not have the right to a vote at this stage and is subjected to the votes of those who do.

Similarly, a fetus does not have the capacity to make a choice in utero, and as such is subjected to the choices of those who do. It may be unfortunate, but that's how it is.

Side: Prolifers

Pro-lifers hold the moral high ground here because they are the only side that will mark a definitive point at which life begins, conception (even if they are wrong on this, they are right to pick a point). Pro-choicers are most often against late term or partial birth abortions, but they don't like to draw the line on where that fetus becomes a human. "How is it a human now but not 1 second ago?". This is the question that could draw life all the way back to conception if they choose a mid pregnancy point.

What this means is that pro-choice people are willing to allow for the legalization of possible infanticide depending on when fetus is a human. Pro-life people won't risk it.

Side: Prolifers

Agrees. Prolifers are the ones who are willing to protect the unborn.

Side: Prolifers

If you look at it from each perspective and assume they are correct on their own terms, the pro-lifers seek to infringe on someones rights, which is immoral. The pro-choicers seek to kill little babies which is immoral. If both sides are correct, it's the pro-lifers that hold the high ground. Murder is worse than one infringement of rights.

Side: Prolifers

Well said. I agree. Murder is a human rights violation. .

Side: Prolifers

Naturally they sound more righteous. It doesn't mean they're right though, just the moral high ground.

Side: Prolifers

Can you explain why you feel this way please? .

Side: Prolifers
Jacobcoolguy(2428) Clarified
2 points

Well, poop nose; when they say "Who are you to end a child's life?" It sounds better than "Its my body and I'll do with it what I damn well please!"

Side: Prolifers
3 points

Neither. It's completely dependent on how the person carries/represents their beliefs.

Side: Prochoicers
1 point

That sounds very subjective to me. Should born people be killed if they are unwanted?

Side: Prolifers
ProLogos(2793) Disputed
1 point

Well, you're asking about morality which is subjective by nature.

I don't hold that belief, but I'm not against it.

Side: Prochoicers
3 points

I'm not pro-choice, I despire that term. It requires thought to even have a choice, and a fetus can't have a choice, so it's an unfair battle if the opposition is pro-life, which is why I also despise that term. I am pro-abortion, I wear that title proudly. I feel no shame in saying that the right for a person to have an abortion should be granted, and the act should be legal. The reason i feel this way is because the 'life' of the baby, is subjectively worth less than that of the mother. Even doctors and most "pro-lifers" agree. If the mother is going to die giving birth, it'd be strongly advised she abort, no matter how late the term. I feel that to say "okay it's a baby, we can't kill it" when it poses no threat, but then to say "it's going to kill you, let's kill it" when it does is somewhat hypocritical. Is it a life and deserves it's life, or is it not and doesn't? My answer. It's a life but does not deserve anything until it can live without being attached to another creature.

Side: Prochoicers
Jace(5222) Clarified
4 points

I reject the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" framing of the issue as well. You either support legal abortions or you appose them. You are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I too identify as pro-abortion, but generally avoid the topic altogether because people are too unintelligent to have a reasoned response. People get all stupid about it and think it means I think everyone should have abortions or that abortions are morally "right". People and their stupid.

Side: Prolifers

I have a lot of respect for your honesty. Most "prochoice" people try to wiggle out of being called proabortion. I used to be proabortion and I had no problem being called that. Upvote for being honest.

Side: Prochoicers
1 point

I don't think that aborting to save the mother is hypocritical. It's self defense. If the threat to your life is totally unaware of trying to kill you, it doesn't make it's life worth less than yours, it just makes it the aggressor to defend against. Not only is this not a hypocritical position, but it makes it clear that while abortion is justifiable in this situation, it isn't justifiable in all situations.

Side: Prolifers
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

You're going with self defense? Why wouldn't abortion under average conditions also be considered self defense. If you don't take extra precautions with the baby on board you will die. Eating for two is not just a clever way of saying "I'm pregnant" it's literally the case, if you don't eat more, you will die. That extra food, you can't just ration it off from the fetus to protect yourself, it's automatically shared with it. Aborting it is just self defense protecting you from having to eat more.

Side: Prolifers

BOTH sides have the moral high ground within their own moral framework. The difference comes down fundamentally to the value and rights assigned to a pregnant woman vs a fertilized egg at various stages of development. For that matter, there is some division on both sides regarding the value and rights in question, the stage of development they begin to apply to, and the extent to which they apply to any given stage of development.

Posted on both sides as there is no 'neither/both' option.

Side: Prochoicers
1 point

It seems to me that the moral framework of both positions comes together once the fetus is considered a human. The issue relies more on when that happens and when it is perceived to happen. Both sides value rights and liberties. Both sides value human life.

Side: Prolifers
1 point

Right, this is exactly what I'm saying... so why the dispute? Misclick?

Side: Prochoicers
2 points

As long as the fetus has not developed sentience, then I can't see anything wrong with aborting it. You aren't ending a life, you may be preventing one from developing but not terminating one. To be outraged by abortion to me is like being outraged that hypothetical person with a, b, c traits hasn't came into existence.

Side: Prochoicers
SitaraMusica(536) Clarified
1 point

I can see why you say that. I briefly shared you view. .

Side: Prolifers
Atrag(5666) Disputed Banned
1 point

"briefly"... within that time you completely reinterpreted the Bible to fit with the belief and called pro-life people immoral and accused them of wanting to 'force pregnancies'.

Side: Prolifers
1 point

As long as the fetus has not developed sentience

Can you say at what point sentience is developed? If it can't be pinned down, are you comfortable with risking murder? If it can be pinned down, are you willing to say that it's a human being "now" and not "2 seconds ago"?

Side: Prolifers
zephyr20x6(2387) Disputed
1 point

Can you say at what point sentience is developed?

When we can detect any signs of sentience, I think the first sign of sentience would be the experience of pain.

If it can't be pinned down, are you comfortable with risking murder?

In most cases it can.

If it can be pinned down, are you willing to say that it's a human being "now" and not "2 seconds ago"?

no, I think 2 seconds would be way to small of a range, but, if it hasn't come too close to the point of developing sentience, then I see no issue.

Side: Prochoicers
King0Mir(67) Disputed
1 point

As long as the fetus has not developed sentience, then I can't see anything wrong with aborting it

This could amount to arguing that infanticide is not murder, because a baby is not fully self aware at birth. These mental facilities develop during early childhood, but a newborn baby is no more mentally capable then some animals.

Side: Prolifers