• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you pro life or pro choice

Are you pro life or pro choice

  • Total voters
    62
Navy Pride said:
You do know my left wing friend its a free country......If you don't like this poll then ignore it......thank you
Click to expand...

Then why the question? It's a free country, in most states. If don't approve of abortion don't have one. Leave everyone else the **** alone about it.
 
I consider myself pro-life, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I vote for candidate claiming to be pro-life.

Too many politicians claim to be pro-life right before the election, but once the votes have been counted in November, these same politicians forget about their promises to the pro-life voters.
 
Since this isn't the abortion board in terms of terminating a pregnancy, what is the poll about?

For if example of a Coast Guard rescue crew was told to abort a rescue mission of a family in the water from a sunken boat, but the coast guard crew thinks they should continue, I think the crew actuallly on the scene should have the final choice of whether or not to continue. So I guess I'm pro-choice.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
I'm for life and for choice.

Can we get a more specific question?
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty specific............can you explain your position.............you can't have it both ways.....
 
Redress said:
That is even worse. Would you accept pro-rights and anti-rights? That is about what you did here.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with rights especially if the mothers life is not endangered.......Its about the innocent defenseless baby in the womb who just wants the same chance at life you got..........But for the grace of God that could have been your mother aborting you Redress.........
 
Navy Pride said:
I think it is pretty specific............can you explain your position.............you can't have it both ways.....
Click to expand...

Position? Might we deduce from your email, NP, that you don't like the woman being on top?
 
Risky Thicket said:
If don't approve of abortion don't have one. Leave everyone else the **** alone about it.
Click to expand...

"If you don't approve of slavery, don't buy one."

Good enough for you?
 
pro choice on just about everything

1) I believe if you don't like abortions don't have one-its your choice

2) if you don't like gay marriages=don't marry someone of the same sex

3) if you don't like transgendered people don't have an addadictome or go from guy to girl

4) if you don't believe in inheritances-don't leave your children any money

5) If you think people should pay more taxes-than pay more yourself

6) if you don't like guns, don't buy one

7) If you don't believe in God, don't attend worship services


I am pro choice across the board
 
Redress said:
That is even worse. Would you accept pro-rights and anti-rights? That is about what you did here.
Click to expand...

No more waffling Redress, your either pro life or pro choice.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Nothing to do with rights especially if the mothers life is not endangered.......Its about the innocent defenseless baby in the womb who just wants the same chance at life you got..........But for the grace of God that could have been your mother aborting you Redress.........
Click to expand...

And that is just your spin NP, and has nothing to do with reality.
 
I am pro-choice. When it comes to personhood the only thing I give a damn about is if the organism has a mind. Be it an embryo, a baby born without a brain, a brain-dead adult, or a corpse, if there is no mind then it is just a meat sack. Sorry if that comes across as blunt, but we can argue the semantics and legal definitions of "human life", "human being", or "person" but I don't give a damn about definitions. If it doesn't have a mind, if it isn't sentient, then it has as much claim to rights as a rock has.

Late term abortions are another story as a fully formed fetus has a developed brain and even dreams. It has a mind. In those cases I only believe abortion should be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger. It's triage. And fortunately, it is rare.
 
Sarcogito said:
I am pro-choice. When it comes to personhood the only thing I give a damn about is if the organism has a mind. Be it an embryo, a baby born without a brain, a brain-dead adult, or a corpse, if there is no mind then it is just a meat sack. Sorry if that comes across as blunt, but we can argue the semantics and legal definitions of "human life", "human being", or "person" but I don't give a damn about definitions. If it doesn't have a mind, if it isn't sentient, then it has as much claim to rights as a rock has.

Late term abortions are another story as a fully formed fetus has a developed brain and even dreams. It has a mind. In those cases I only believe abortion should be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger. It's triage. And fortunately, it is rare.
Click to expand...

I go by evolution. If the organism is left to its own, how will it develop. Will it develop a brain? Then that's that. It's a creature capable of that, it's just us at an earlier stage in life. The brain is an important organ, sometimes a baby won't develop one. Evolution over at that point. Humans have always been about potential.
 
Redress said:
I reject the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice as being inaccurate spin.
Click to expand...

Really?

I get your stance, to a point, but at hte same time it at least readily identifies each group by the nomeclature that group generally chooses to use and best reflects the actual basis for the majority of those on that side's view.

I was actually going to applaud navy for putting "Pro-Choice" and not "Pro-Abortion" or somtehing of the sort. So many people ridiculsouly on both sides attempt to change the other sides designation as a means to insult, belittle, and switch up context and it was nice to see for once someone didn't do that.

I would say personally I am pro-life. I am an individual that believes there are legitimate exceptions and also believe that the issue is so opinion based in nature with no true sound way to unquestionably determine such an answer that it is more in line with our Constitution to allow it to be decided on a State by State level rather than by a one size fits all federal fiat.
 
Ikari said:
I go by evolution. If the organism is left to its own, how will it develop. Will it develop a brain? Then that's that. It's a creature capable of that, it's just us at an earlier stage in life. The brain is an important organ, sometimes a baby won't develop one. Evolution over at that point. Humans have always been about potential.
Click to expand...

I don't care what it might be in the future or what it was in the past. I care what it is.
 
Sarcogito said:
I don't care what it might be in the future or what it was in the past. I care what it is.
Click to expand...

In that case, I can't see why you don't support "abortion" following birth either. A human newborn is not independent, it is not a significantly sentient entity, it is not a significantly sapient entity. It is a highly efficient, crying, milk-to-poop engine that requires a great deal of maintenance.

A human neonate is less aware of its surroundings and less capable of judgement than what you may have had for dinner last night.



My solution to this dilemma is quite simple, of course, a living human has intrinsic value; sapience is a hallmark of our species. It is not present at conception; it is not present at birth, but because we are a sapient species, all Homo sapiens have intrinsic value, and all should be equal in the eyes of the law.

I have yet to see the distinguished opposition present a cogent solution to the dilemma.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
In that case, I can't see why you don't support "abortion" following birth either. A human newborn is not independent, it is not a significantly sentient entity, it is not a significantly sapient entity.
Click to expand...

It is significantly sentient for me. It has a mind. It senses its environment. It learns and remembers. Even a late stage fetus dreams. Yes, the thoughts are VERY rudimentary, but thought occurs nonetheless.

A human neonate is less aware of its surroundings and less capable of judgement than what you may have had for dinner last night.
Click to expand...

Not likely, since I am vegan. :) And not wanting to kill things with minds if I can avoid it is one of the reasons I am vegan.

My solution to this dilemma is quite simple, of course, a living human has intrinsic value; sapience is a hallmark of our species. It is not present at conception; it is not present at birth, but because we are a sapient species, all Homo sapiens have intrinsic value, and all should be equal in the eyes of the law.

I have yet to see the distinguished opposition present a cogent solution to the dilemma.
Click to expand...

Since my interpretation of the science leads me to believe that sentience IS present at birth and even for a bit before birth, your solution doesn't solve anything in my mind. My stance is the most intellectually honest one I can take. Until a fetus develops to the point of having a mind it is just a cluster of tissue with no more right to remain in the woman's body than an appendix.
 
Last edited:
Morally pro-life, legally pro-choice.

Basically I don't think the government should get invovled in matters of sexual morality. I think it's morally abhorrent, but none of the government's business.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The honest answer would be probably "neither" or "somewhere in between."
Click to expand...

Josie said:
I'm for life and for choice.

Can we get a more specific question?
Click to expand...


Pro-life is opposition to legalized abortion.Pro-choice is the supporting or advocating of legalized abortion. Pro-choice is the polar opposite of pro-life.So there is no in-between or both choice.

Pro-life | Define Pro-life at Dictionary.com
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.

Pro-choice | Define Pro-choice at Dictionary.com
supporting or advocating legalized abortion.
 
Sarcogito said:
It is significantly sentient for me. It has a mind. It senses its environment. It learns and remembers. Even a late stage fetus dreams. Yes, the thoughts are VERY rudimentary, but thought occurs nonetheless.

Not likely, since I am vegan. :) And not wanting to kill things with minds if I can avoid it is one of the reasons I am vegan.
Click to expand...

While your dietary habits make the discussion somewhat more interesting on the periphery, the point I made was more resilient than that, I'm afraid. You still MAY have had an animal with a rudimentary mind for dinner last night. In other words, those creatures have no rights, are property, and are killed for food. Or perhaps another comparison is warranted to say, a common domestic pet like a cat or a dog. Again, an adult cat or dog can demonstrate more judgment (sapience) and awareness (sentience) than a human neonate, yet they are property.

Despite this, the neonate is not property and cannot be killed for food. If we are to be consistent, it could only be due to presumption of intrinsic value, as the qualities of the organism do not demonstrate superiority in these relevant factors for consideration, at least, not at the age in question. So the question remains that if the neonate has intrinsic value for nothing more than being a human, why not a fetus? Why not an embryo?
 
Last edited:
See, technically, everyone would claim to favor "life" and "choice," which is part of why the terms pro-life and pro-choice are misleading and stupid.


Furthermore, there is no such thing as "personally anti-abortion, but..."

That is like saying "I would not personally buy a slave, but who other people choose to buy is none of my business." Such a person supports the legality of slavery. An abolitionist of slavery would not consider such a person to be an ally, literally or intellectually.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
See, technically, everyone would claim to favor "life" and "choice," which is part of why the terms pro-life and pro-choice are misleading and stupid.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "personally anti-abortion, but..."

That is like saying "I would not personally buy a slave, but who other people choose to buy is none of my business." Such a person supports the legality of slavery. An abolitionist of slavery would not consider such a person to be an ally, literally or intellectually.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you're wrong. My wife and I, for instance, wouldn't have an abortion, except in specific circumstances. We talked about it long ago. It's a decision we made. What other people do isn't our business. That's the whole point of choice, giving each person or couple the right to choose what they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom