Pro Life or Pro Choice, Which "Side" is More Emotionally Driven?[W:87]

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I'm not sure what you're asking. Seriously -- what are you trying to "dig" for when I've just said all of this stuff? Your interrogation technique sucks.

Well, apart from trying to claim I called you a terrorist.

Click to expand...

That's just the lamest attempt at baiting I've ever seen. Stuff like that is why no one takes you seriously -- and neither do I. But anyway...

"Pro-abortion" isn't factually correct. The pro-choice also support birth. In fact, we're the only ones who put substantial resources and funding into making pre-natal more accessible. Again, another reason I don't use "pro-life." You guys have left us holding the bag trying to help poor mothers -- women you supposedly want to prevent from aborting, but refuse to do anything to support.

I've said before that you're more than welcome to use any negative-sounding term you please as long as it's correct. I've even offered some suggestions. I've even done it in the form of cool punk rock band names.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Never said that.

Trust me, you know nothing of what it means to be pro-life. If you think no pro-lifer has stepped up...actually, forget it. It doesn't matter.

What negative sounding terms for pro-choice are you willing to accept?

Incidentally, there is a very common pro abortion argument. Anytime the argument that abortion is actually preferable to being born "unwanted" (because women are incapable of kindness to a child if they, initially thought they didn't want it), that is a pro abortion argument, actually saying that in those instances, abortion is not only a choice, it is the right choice and giving birth the wrong choice.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I think it's the pro-life side and I say that as a pro-lifer. This might be the surprising to some, since the "appeal to emotion" argument is often denigrated as a poor, or illogical argument. I admit that I even went so far as to believe that the pro-choice "side" makes the more logical sense if you completely strip the emotion out of the topic. I've rethought that, though. I don't think all those arguments intended to divorce the human fetus from it's humanity or completely denying that it is worthy of empathy simply because it is in the womb are logical, to me and I do think it takes some twisting of logic to argue that the fetus is anything but a developing human baby. I do hope we'd all agree that a human baby, even a very young one, should be protected from destruction wherever possible (not to assume anything).

So, thinking more about it, I believe the pro-choice side is easier because it doesn't really have to stand up for anything. How often do we hear, "well I'd never have an abortion but..." So the pro-choice side doesn't really take responsibility for anything. In most of the positions we hold, whatever the topic, there's a potential down side, one we need to recognize. Certainly that's true as a pro-lifer. We have to acknowledge that, sometimes, the argument in justifying the termination of a pregnancy can be quite strong - this is why you get some variance when it comes to the whole "rape, incest, danger to the mothers health" scenarios. To be pro-life, we need to be willing to acknowledge that life is not always the easiest "choice" and we should not downplay that.

The pro-choice side takes responsiblity for nothing, really. If it's a "bad" abortion or one that most people would find pretty callous, the argument is, "hey, I'd never do such an act, but it's not my business or yours" or, as we most often hear, "I'd personally never do it, but..." In that way, they can still personally claim the moral high ground without responsibility for any of the bad.

So, back to the original question, which side do you think is more emotionally "driven". I'm adding a poll.

Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:

They haven't -- not in any coordinated way. Their support seems to end at coercing women out of aborting at lie- and shame-based "support" centers. After that, they're SOL. A lot of anti-choice people even support defunding healthcare and welfare. Where do you expect these women in poverty to get help?

All of the major organizations that provide low-cost and free support for mothers are pro-choice. All of them.

Click to expand...

Anti-fetal rights? Get creative.

Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone pro-choice say that as some kind of rule. I've seen people say that is why they might personally abort, if they also believe the adoption system is inadequate or are unwilling to endure the damage to their body for a child they won't raise. But no, I think you made that up.

Click to expand...

I have also heard -- and said -- that parents do not always bond to an unwanted child. Sorry, but that is factually true. That should be no surprise, given that unwanted children can collapse a family's ability to survive. Stress messes people up. They won't just "love it when it gets here" because you want to live in a fantasy land where there's always a perfect ending. Reality isn't pretty.

Click to expand...

Saucey said:

The "pro choice" people have pretty much made every excuse under the sun as reasons to support being pro choice. And most of it turns out to be baseless attacks on who the think are their opponents. Its very political for them and they are emotional about it. Anyone can be emotional about anything they have passion for. I really don't know what to think about them. I think a minority of them really are demonic and believe in what they say, then the majority just goes with the flow to be a part of that clique. And that clique is a big part of our pop culture here coming out of 2015.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

So, thinking more about it, I believe the pro-choice side is easier because it doesn't really have to stand up for anything.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

The pro-choice side takes responsiblity for nothing, really. If it's a "bad" abortion or one that most people would find pretty callous, the argument is, "hey, I'd never do such an act, but it's not my business or yours" or, as we most often hear, "I'd personally never do it, but..." In that way, they can still personally claim the moral high ground without responsibility for any of the bad.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Not true, but also know you're not interested in anything that fails to vilify pro-lifers.

Pro the choice to destroy life in the womb? It's a little cumbersome, but...

I'm half convinced pro-the choice to destroy life in the wombers either don't read what other on their side say or they immediately forget once they "like" it.

I give women far more credit. I'd hope most people would not want to hurt a child and would understand that the child is not at fault for existing. Can we, at least, agree that there is no legit justification for child abuse (at which ever point you actually might feel it reasonable to actually oppose the abuse and destruction of young life).

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

The second argument has very little basis in emotion, and great basis in the individual right of the woman to control her own body.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

So an 8 month old baby in the womb is only a "potential" baby, and the intentional destruction of human life is no different than the natural end of life? None of that is logical to me, at all. Besides, you don't have to even consider the unborn child, do you? You wash your hands of the whole thing by saying, "it's her choice."

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:

Our law recognizes that at a certain stage of development the fetus is considered human enough to prevent elective abortion unless the life of the mother was endangered.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Incidentally, it is true that abortion engages my emotions, just the same way animal abuse or child abuse, or domestic violence do. My most passionately held beliefs are the ones that engage my emotions. As such, I can fully understand how the pro-choice side is far less passion inducing. Hard to get too excited when the argument is basically "meh, whatever".

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

How often does that 8 month old 'baby' get intentionally destroyed when it's not a medical emergency for the mother or that fetus is severely defective?

is that even a concern? If it occurs electively, please show us the data.

Maybe those that are familiar with the facts arent concerned about that because it isnt happening?

Click to expand...

Saucey said:

The "pro choice" people have pretty much made every excuse under the sun as reasons to support being pro choice. And most of it turns out to be baseless attacks on who the think are their opponents. Its very political for them and they are emotional about it. Anyone can be emotional about anything they have passion for. I really don't know what to think about them. I think a minority of them really are demonic and believe in what they say, then the majority just goes with the flow to be a part of that clique. And that clique is a big part of our pop culture here coming out of 2015.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Sorry, I'm trying to refer to an obvious point in the gestation where very few (I think) would actually object to recognizing him or her is, indeed, a baby.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Why does that matter?

A discussion of abortion is basically about either ethics or law (or both). These are the subjective pieces.

The classification of the stages of human development are science and objective. So discussion really revolves around the subjective.

Unless you have some other point to make with that question. If so, I apologize and would be interested.

Click to expand...

spud_meister said:

Both sides. The whole debate is an emotional one. If no-one was emotionally involved in the topic, then there wouldn't be the argument about whether it's better to kill a baby or enslave a woman.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Damn that does reduce it to its bare essence, doesnt it?

Which is why I try to point out that 'choice' is the better option IMO because since it's been legal for 40+ yrs, more women stilll choose to give birth than have abortions.

It seems to me that women are truly the better arbiters over their own lives and because even when not ready or are unprepared or cant afford it or have to make great sacrifices.....most still decide to give birth.

And the abortion rate goes down every year.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

That's interesting considering how many people argue that an "unwanted" child is just destined for abuse.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

So, thinking more about it, I believe the pro-choice side is easier because it doesn't really have to stand up for anything.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I think it's the pro-life side and I say that as a pro-lifer. This might be the surprising to some, since the "appeal to emotion" argument is often denigrated as a poor, or illogical argument. I admit that I even went so far as to believe that the pro-choice "side" makes the more logical sense if you completely strip the emotion out of the topic. I've rethought that, though. I don't think all those arguments intended to divorce the human fetus from it's humanity or completely denying that it is worthy of empathy simply because it is in the womb are logical, to me and I do think it takes some twisting of logic to argue that the fetus is anything but a developing human baby. I do hope we'd all agree that a human baby, even a very young one, should be protected from destruction wherever possible (not to assume anything).

So, thinking more about it, I believe the pro-choice side is easier because it doesn't really have to stand up for anything. How often do we hear, "well I'd never have an abortion but..." So the pro-choice side doesn't really take responsibility for anything. In most of the positions we hold, whatever the topic, there's a potential down side, one we need to recognize. Certainly that's true as a pro-lifer. We have to acknowledge that, sometimes, the argument in justifying the termination of a pregnancy can be quite strong - this is why you get some variance when it comes to the whole "rape, incest, danger to the mothers health" scenarios. To be pro-life, we need to be willing to acknowledge that life is not always the easiest "choice" and we should not downplay that.

The pro-choice side takes responsiblity for nothing, really. If it's a "bad" abortion or one that most people would find pretty callous, the argument is, "hey, I'd never do such an act, but it's not my business or yours" or, as we most often hear, "I'd personally never do it, but..." In that way, they can still personally claim the moral high ground without responsibility for any of the bad.

So, back to the original question, which side do you think is more emotionally "driven". I'm adding a poll.

Click to expand...

JayDubya said:

It's undoubtedly the pro-aborts.

Literally all they have is emotionalism and histrionics about how if you don't agree with them you hate women. Down the line, there's zero science and zero logic or reason behind their opinions.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I will say that I know Jay get's angry

Click to expand...