• 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!

Should be "pro-choice" be renamed to "anti-life"?

Should be "pro-choice" renamed to "anti-life"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • No

    Votes: 28 87.5%
  • I dunno

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32
Neither is making a moral claim, both of mine are generic claims on if you want legal access.

No, your terms where whether or not some one is in favor of abortion. That is incomplete. The debate is over whether or not having abortions should be legal. Without realizing it, you made the same mistake you criticized others for.
 
Yeah, I'll agree with that, I just don't think pro-abortion is specific enough, since it implies you are for the act, instead of it just being legal.

Yes, this. In trying to (correctly) clarify the terms, he again placed it in terms that are not accurate. I dislike guns, but am pro-gun rights. Don't call me pro-gun, cuz I sure as hell do not want to own one.
 
No, your terms where whether or not some one is in favor of abortion. That is incomplete. The debate is over whether or not having abortions should be legal. Without realizing it, you made the same mistake you criticized others for.

If you are in favor of it being legal, you are in favor of abortion.
There is no moral distinction made.

It is a simple term, using the terms choice and life are both inherently emotional and don't make a real distinction of legality.

I did the opposite, solely related to a generic legal understanding.
The individual details of a person's "favor" for abortion must be hashed out in an explained debate, something that no simple "pro" or "anti" could carry.
 
This is flat out wrong. The best terms I can come up with are Pro-abortion rights and Anti-abortion rights. You can be fore an act to be legal without being in favor of people doing that act.

Didnt harry say the same thing redress ?

Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
The correct terminology for both sides should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
 
Yes, this. In trying to (correctly) clarify the terms, he again placed it in terms that are not accurate. I dislike guns, but am pro-gun rights. Don't call me pro-gun, cuz I sure as hell do not want to own one.

Saying you're pro gun is no reference that you want to own or posses a gun but that you merely want it to be legal.

You're adding meaning to things that don't otherwise exist.
 
If you are in favor of it being legal, you are in favor of abortion.
There is no moral distinction made.

It is a simple term, using the terms choice and life are both inherently emotional and don't make a real distinction of legality.

I did the opposite, solely related to a generic legal understanding.
The individual details of a person's "favor" for abortion must be hashed out in an explained debate, something that no simple "pro" or "anti" could carry.

No. Let me give you another example: I am in favor of people having the right to burn the flag, the bible and the koran. I find all 3 morally reprehensible things to do. I am not in favor of flag or bible burning, I am in favor of people having the right to choose. It is a large significant difference.

Didnt harry say the same thing redress ?

No, that is what we are arguing about.
 
If you are in favor of it being legal, you are in favor of abortion.
There is no moral distinction made.

It is a simple term, using the terms choice and life are both inherently emotional and don't make a real distinction of legality.

I did the opposite, solely related to a generic legal understanding.
The individual details of a person's "favor" for abortion must be hashed out in an explained debate, something that no simple "pro" or "anti" could carry.

Problem is Harry, I am not in favor of abortion. I am in favor of it being an option. There is a distinction.
 
Saying you're pro gun is no reference that you want to own or posses a gun but that you merely want it to be legal.

You're adding meaning to things that don't otherwise exist.

But saying "pro-gun" does not say I favor gun rights, it says I am for guns. I am not. I don't want one, I think we would be better off as a country if people did not own them. However, I do not think it is my place to make that value judgment for others, so while I am anti-gun, I am pro-gun rights.
 
If you are in favor of it being legal, you are in favor of abortion.
There is no moral distinction made.

It is a simple term, using the terms choice and life are both inherently emotional and don't make a real distinction of legality.

I did the opposite, solely related to a generic legal understanding.
The individual details of a person's "favor" for abortion must be hashed out in an explained debate, something that no simple "pro" or "anti" could carry.

Your simplifying the issue, by saying you are pro abortion, you are implying that someone is in favor of abortion, the act, not the legality of it. Pro Abortion rights, and anti-abortion rights, implies that you are for or against the legality of it, and does not involve morality, like the terms pro/antil abortion does.
 
The problem is that all of you guys are making a hasty generalization, that is associated with simple labels.
Using any simple label with inevitably come with a need of further explanation of a position.

Instead you should explain this in the abortion debate and smack the people who assume that is what your "pro" or "anti" means.

The pro or anti label is simple, it confers no moral belief but a very simple belief in favor of a general position, that must be hashed out further in detailed explanation.
 
Your simplifying the issue, by saying you are pro abortion, you are implying that someone is in favor of abortion, the act, not the legality of it. Pro Abortion rights, and anti-abortion rights, implies that you are for or against the legality of it, and does not involve morality, like the terms pro/antil abortion does.

People will still associate morality with it, regardless of the addition of "rights."

You should point out to them that they have made a hasty generalization.
 
Pro-choice, my choice is pro-life. I'll let other people make their own choice.
It makes more sense to me to be pro-choice if you don't believe there are any moral implications to the act. If you do believe it to be immoral, then how can you support others having a right to do it? Do you also believe people have the right to abuse their children even if it's something you yourself would never do?
 
The problem is that all of you guys are making a hasty generalization, that is associated with simple labels.
Using any simple label with inevitably come with a need of further explanation of a position.

Instead you should explain this in the abortion debate and smack the people who assume that is what your "pro" or "anti" means.

The pro or anti label is simple, it confers no moral belief but a very simple belief in favor of a general position, that must be hashed out further in detailed explanation.

Except that my labels actually accurately described the positions while yours inaccurately described the positions. While neither is 100 % complete, yours where actually inaccurate in their portrayal.
 
It makes more sense to me to be pro-choice if you don't believe there are any moral implications to the act. If you do believe it to be immoral, then how can you support others having a right to do it? Do you also believe people have the right to abuse their children even if it's something you yourself would never do?

So you think we should legislate morality?
 
Except that my labels actually accurately described the positions while yours inaccurately described the positions. While neither is 100 % complete, yours where actually inaccurate in their portrayal.

It is no less inaccurate because of the varied beliefs behind the abortion issue.

No matter which of the labels I use, both mine and yours, neither are adequate to explain my position behind it.
 
The opponents of abortion are "pro-life", but to call pro-abortion movement as "pro-choice" is not true and misleading because abortion is a murder, the womans have the right to know that in reality the supporters of abortions are "anti-life",but not fine, nice, fluffy-bunny and politically correct "pro-choice". Do you agree with, please vote.

I've never really met anyone that was actually "pro-abortion" so you start the whole premise on a falsehood. At the center of the pro-choice philosophy is that abortion should be safe, available, and unnecessary.
 
It is no less inaccurate because of the varied beliefs behind the abortion issue.

No matter which of the labels I use, both mine and yours, neither are adequate to explain my position behind it.

Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are supporting the right to have one. Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you oppose having the right to have an abortion. That works

Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are for abortion. Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are against abortion. That does not work.
 
It makes more sense to me to be pro-choice if you don't believe there are any moral implications to the act. If you do believe it to be immoral, then how can you support others having a right to do it? Do you also believe people have the right to abuse their children even if it's something you yourself would never do?

I've stated this before, and I guess I'll say it again. I believe it should be legal, because it would be worse for society to have it illegal, unlike child abuse, which would be worse for society to have it legal, than illegal. That is my basis for laws, not on morality, I don't believe we should legislate morality, we should legislate what is best for society.
 
Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are supporting the right to have one. Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you oppose having the right to have an abortion. That works

Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are for abortion. Whether you think abortion is moral or not, you are against abortion. That does not work.

But what if you think abortion should be a legal privilege and not a legal right?
It's more of a utilitarian aspect but still valid.

Also, seeing abortion "rights" adds another emotional aspect behind the termonology because many believe that the "right" to abortion was falsely found.
 
Last edited:
So you think we should legislate morality?
Yes. What's more, we already do, otherwise child abuse would not be illegal. Neither would rape, theft or DWI.
 
I've stated this before, and I guess I'll say it again. I believe it should be legal, because it would be worse for society to have it illegal, unlike child abuse, which would be worse for society to have it legal, than illegal. That is my basis for laws, not on morality, I don't believe we should legislate morality, we should legislate what is best for society.
That sounds like an incredibly subjective standard. I can tell you, if you think abortion is good for society, you and I hold very different views of what "good for society" looks like.
 
Last edited:
It seems like this has become the whole po-tay-to, po-tah-to debate. A potato is a potato is a potato. If you support a woman's right to have an abortion than you are pro. If you don't, then you are anti. It doesn't have to be anymore complex than that. By saying you support the woman's right to choose you are accepting abortion as a viable procedure. You are pro-abortion. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that, and exaggerated explanations aren't necessary. I can't imagine dealing with the consequences of an abortion, so I will probably not have one. I am not going to try to force a friend or stranger into avoiding the procedure if they want one. I can't force them to consider every option in depth, but can only hope that they have. It isn't for me to decide what is or is not best for the potential child and its mother.

I am not religious, but I fully believe in the concept of "judge not, lest ye be judged". I may not personally like somebody's actions, but until their actions infringe upon my constitutionally given rights I cannot and will not assert any authority or force over them. That applies to abortion and 4532643654 other actions.
 
It seems like this has become the whole po-tay-to, po-tah-to debate. A potato is a potato is a potato. If you support a woman's right to have an abortion than you are pro. If you don't, then you are anti. It doesn't have to be anymore complex than that. By saying you support the woman's right to choose you are accepting abortion as a viable procedure. You are pro-abortion. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that, and exaggerated explanations aren't necessary. I can't imagine dealing with the consequences of an abortion, so I will probably not have one. I am not going to try to force a friend or stranger into avoiding the procedure if they want one. I can't force them to consider every option in depth, but can only hope that they have. It isn't for me to decide what is or is not best for the potential child and its mother.

I am not religious, but I fully believe in the concept of "judge not, lest ye be judged". I may not personally like somebody's actions, but until their actions infringe upon my constitutionally given rights I cannot and will not assert any authority or force over them. That applies to abortion and 4532643654 other actions.

In full disclosure, debating for me is a sport and I like to give Redress hell. :)
 
That sounds like an incredibly subjective standard. I can tell you, of you think abortion is good for society, you and I hold very different views of what "good for society" looks like.

I don't think abortion is good for society, I think having it illegal is bad for society, because it will just lead to women who want an abortion to get them illegally, which will be unsafe, and will lead to the death of many women. It's why I think marijuana should be legal as well, marijuana itself isn't good for society, but having it illegal causes more damage to society than having it legal. Via the drug crime violence, and giving organized crime a big cash crop etc.

Also I don't see how you can say my reasoning is subjective, and think that morality will be more objective?
 
Last edited:
Yes. What's more, we already do, otherwise child abuse would not be illegal. Neither would rape, theft or DWI.

Child abuse, rape, theft and DWI all are to protect personal rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom