• 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
I'm not asking about your reasoning in terms of legality, I get that, I understand that...

What I want to know and better understand is why you feel the moral need to "give weight" to the fetus at all? Why is it that the fetus gains any "weight" for you on a personal level? That's what I'm asking about to better understand. And you haven't really pretty much told me. You just keep saying you feel morally its wrong or that you give more weight to the fetus, but that's telling me an action you're taking or a view point you have but not the WHY? I'm asking...why? Why is it wrong? Why do you feel a moral issue with it? Why does a fetus have "weight" for you personally.

Not asking, nor caring, about your stance with imposing it on others. I fully get and understand your stance that you do not believe your personal opinion should apply to others...but I'm trying to understand what your personal opinion is.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly. As the fetus gets closer and closer to life then I believe that it becomes more and more morally objectionable to killing it. I have no issues with abortion during the first trimester, nor do I equate abortion with the murder of a person. What more can I say to you. I think my position has been explained ad naseum here.
 
I know the poll question....I actually attempted to not pretend I'm obtuse or act problematic simply because I didn't like exactly how the OP phrased things and actually ansewred the question as best as possible in relation to my own views. Perhaps once you do that you can try and get back to emphasizing words in that question for me.

And answering "I'm neither as they don't actually describe me, I'm ..... [blah]" would be answering that poll questoin that's the topic. You instead just decided to bitch about the labels that are rather universally accepted and are the farthest from "spin" of any of the regularly used ways to describing the two groups. You're not a dumb person, so you at least have a decent enough understanding of what's meant by "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to still give your opinion of your own stances on things in relation to the two. However you seem to just wanted to nitpick the words rather than address the topics question which leads to these types of discussions.

While I do not like the labels in general, as I also have commented no set of labels is perfect. However, since this thread asked what I was, I figured that the context would make clear what I meant when I simply flatly stated that I rejected those labels.
 
Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice are the most appropriate labels of any.
 
Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice are the most appropriate labels of any.

No, they're really not, as they take the mindset of one side...erroniously place that mindset onto the intent and views of the other side unfairly....and then judges the otherside based on that. It is no more accurate than saying it should be Pro-Abortoin and Anti-Abortion because you're in favor of abortoins being allowed to happen.

Pro-Choice most accurately, in short hand, describes the generalized view point of that side that they are in favor of a woman's right to choose what to do with regards to pregnancy occuring her body. Pro-Life most accurately, in short hand, describes the generalized view poin of that side in that they are in favor of the state acting in protection of the life of the child by disallowing it to be killed. It would be wrong to categories Pro-Choicers are "pro-abortoin" because, while they are in favor of abortion being legal, the reasons and intent behind their position resides more in their belief of choice in terms of the females body then it does specifically about whether or not abortoin should be legal. It would be wrong to categories Pro-Lifer's as "anti-choice" because the entire aspect of the notion of "choice" is as non-sensical based on their view point as it would be if you suggested a parent had a "choice" to kill their 3 year old.
 
No, they're really not, as they take the mindset of one side...erroniously place that mindset onto the intent and views of the other side unfairly....and then judges the otherside based on that. It is no more accurate than saying it should be Pro-Abortoin and Anti-Abortion because you're in favor of abortoins being allowed to happen.

Pro-Choice most accurately, in short hand, describes the generalized view point of that side that they are in favor of a woman's right to choose what to do with regards to pregnancy occuring her body. Pro-Life most accurately, in short hand, describes the generalized view poin of that side in that they are in favor of the state acting in protection of the life of the child by disallowing it to be killed. It would be wrong to categories Pro-Choicers are "pro-abortoin" because, while they are in favor of abortion being legal, the reasons and intent behind their position resides more in their belief of choice in terms of the females body then it does specifically about whether or not abortoin should be legal. It would be wrong to categories Pro-Lifer's as "anti-choice" because the entire aspect of the notion of "choice" is as non-sensical based on their view point as it would be if you suggested a parent had a "choice" to kill their 3 year old.

I disagree. I think the labels are quite accurate and do not particularly favor one side unfairly. The issue is abortion, not a parent killing a 3 year old.

You either agree that the woman should have a choice to have an abortion or not. Its quite simple.

You are either FOR that choice (Pro) or against that choice (Anti).
 
As the fetus gets closer and closer to life then I believe that it becomes more and more morally objectionable to killing it.

So you recognize that the fetus in some fashion is a life or approaching being a life, and is worthy of moral "weight" to be placed on it, however you make a subjective decision personally in terms of when you believe its worthy of weight and when it's not? Yes? Again, just you personally.

So here's my question. What if you hypothetically, PERSONALLY, felt the fetus had the moral "weight" of any other human life by that second trimester. Do you believe you would as easily think that it is not your place to push for action to protect what you assign such "weight to"? Not even saying WOULD you think that, but would it be a bit harder to make that decision.

You're not really that different than a pro-lifer, despite the way your guilty consious squirms and dances to where you have to complain about explaining yourself "Ad naseum" when in rality you talked in vagueries repeatedly until you finally gave a smattering of truth in your post that the reason you assign it some mortal weight is because it is related in some way to a human life. The only difference between You and a Pro-lifer is not simply the belief of whether or not ones beliefs should be imposed on others...the difference is in how much moral worth you place on the fetus's life. You place enough to where on a personal level, for your own soul or mind or heart or consious, you would suggest people shouldn't do it but you don't put enough on it to where you can't justify suggesting that the state has an necessary interest to act. The only real difference is that pro-lifer's put enough moral weight on it to consider it worthy of protection, they put moral weight on it similar to that as a child, and as such refusing to compell the state to take action in such a case would be tantamount to refusing to compell the state to take action from a mother killing her infant, because in both cases the person sincerely believes morally in their hearts that the fetus has the same moral weight as any other child.

Now you can disagree with them, you can argue with them, you can find their arguments hollow. But to be frank, it's ridiculous and to me hypocritical when you insult and belittle them for their views because they are not much different in you in thinking and are seeking to act no less morally than you. They simply place a different subjective worth on the child than you do...and yours is no more correct or legitimate in the grand scheme of things then theirs.
 
So you recognize that the fetus in some fashion is a life or approaching being a life, and is worthy of moral "weight" to be placed on it, however you make a subjective decision personally in terms of when you believe its worthy of weight and when it's not? Yes? Again, just you personally.

So here's my question. What if you hypothetically, PERSONALLY, felt the fetus had the moral "weight" of any other human life by that second trimester. Do you believe you would as easily think that it is not your place to push for action to protect what you assign such "weight to"? Not even saying WOULD you think that, but would it be a bit harder to make that decision.

You're not really that different than a pro-lifer, despite the way your guilty consious squirms and dances to where you have to complain about explaining yourself "Ad naseum" when in rality you talked in vagueries repeatedly until you finally gave a smattering of truth in your post that the reason you assign it some mortal weight is because it is related in some way to a human life. The only difference between You and a Pro-lifer is not simply the belief of whether or not ones beliefs should be imposed on others...the difference is in how much moral worth you place on the fetus's life. You place enough to where on a personal level, for your own soul or mind or heart or consious, you would suggest people shouldn't do it but you don't put enough on it to where you can't justify suggesting that the state has an necessary interest to act. The only real difference is that pro-lifer's put enough moral weight on it to consider it worthy of protection, they put moral weight on it similar to that as a child, and as such refusing to compell the state to take action in such a case would be tantamount to refusing to compell the state to take action from a mother killing her infant, because in both cases the person sincerely believes morally in their hearts that the fetus has the same moral weight as any other child.

Now you can disagree with them, you can argue with them, you can find their arguments hollow. But to be frank, it's ridiculous and to me hypocritical when you insult and belittle them for their views because they are not much different in you in thinking and are seeking to act no less morally than you. They simply place a different subjective worth on the child than you do...and yours is no more correct or legitimate in the grand scheme of things then theirs.

No. Not at all. The pro-life side believes that they and the government are in a better position than the woman and her doctor in making the decision. I believe that despite my personal views, the woman and her doctor are in a better position. Believe it or not. One can be morally opposed to abortion and pro-choice, whether you want to accept that or not.
 
No. Not at all. The pro-life side believes that they and the government are in a better position than the woman and her doctor in making the decision.

Again, no they don't. This just isn't true. Show me anything that depicts that this is the majority opinion of why Pro-Life individuals believe abortion should not be legal in most cases rather than because they believe the fetus is a child and as such it is the duty of the state to protect it from being killed.

You're taking your own bigoted and biased view of the carictature stereotype of a Pro-Lifer you have conjured in your head, placing your own view of what they must "really" think as if you are a great and mighty psychic that knows the truth, and then proceeding to then argue that as if it is the truth amongst the majority of those on that side of the argument.

I can truthfully say that, save for perhaps 1% of the pro-lifers I've ever discussed this with or seen talking about it, that I've not seen them suggest that the reason abortoins should be illegal is because the government and themselves are in a better position to make a medical decision.

I believe that despite my personal views, the woman and her doctor are in a better position. Believe it or not. One can be morally opposed to abortion and pro-choice, whether you want to accept that or not.

Jesus, you're so guilt ridden and paranoid about this you can't even let yourself read what people are saying.

I completely accepted your moral stance on it. I never stated any issue on your moral stance. I fully acknowledged yours is a legitimate moral stance to have. Indeed, my own moral stance is somewhere between your own and a typical pro-lifer. You are so absolutely prejudiced and bigoted towards anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with you on such an issue as this that you latch onto overwaught, ridiculous stereotypes and apply them ignorantly and with great biased upon people. You treat pro-liferes no different then racists treat black people and do so based on an extremely similar mindset and mentality. You can be morally opposed to abortion and be pro-choice...my point was that one must only go a few steps past your own moral grounds to reach a point where it is no longer "approaching" a life but IS a life which leads to all sorts of different moral questions one must ask themselves. I am not suggesting that you can't be morally opposed to abortion and pro-choice, I am suggesting that your moral opposition and your stance on it is not the only legitimate and reasonable approach or stance to have on the issue.
 
Pro-fetal-rights and anti-fetal-rights are the best labels for most people.

....

Ho-Lee-****

That is the best short hand, to the point, good description, not slanted either way, descrpition I've ever seen. WOW well done. Especially highlighted on the notion that it seems a majority of traditionally pro-choicers see it as "Fetus != child" while pro-lifers see it as "Fetus = Child"
 
No opinion is an in between or both choice. Having a different view federally than you do locally is an in-between or both choice.
Only a ****en moron says it should be left up to the states because of the simple fact someone can take their happy ass to the next state and getting an abortion thus defeating the purpose of making abortion illegal in your own state. I never understood why some people calling themselves pro-life would take such an idiotic position on something they believe is murder or should be legally defined as murder. Nobody says oh I think murder,child molestation, rape or some other vile crime should be left up to the states to decide whether or not they want those things to be illegal. If someone truly believes abortion is murder or should be considered murder then no one in their right mind who is actually against abortion is going to want the states to decide whether or not it should be legal or illegal.


Just because you have difficulty envisioning that others can have complex thoughts on the issue, doesn't mean everyone sees the issue in the very simple black and white way that you do
.
In the abortion issue the terms pro-choice and pro-life are black and white issues.One if for abortion being legal and the other is for abortion being illegal.
 
Last edited:
Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice are the most appropriate labels of any.

Except, I'm probably more in favor of freedom of choice than you... unfortunately, freedom of choice doesn't justify or really have much to do with homicide... Not every choice should be legal.
 
I disagree. I think the labels are quite accurate and do not particularly favor one side unfairly. The issue is abortion, not a parent killing a 3 year old.

You either agree that the woman should have a choice to have an abortion or not. Its quite simple.

You are either FOR that choice (Pro) or against that choice (Anti).

But it's not because you're still using propaganda as you haven't limited the "choice" to only abortion. As such to use your convention it would be pro-allowing-elective-abortion and anti-allowing-elective-abortion.
 
Pro-fetal-rights and anti-fetal-rights are the best labels for most people.

Except it has nothing to do with fetal rights and everything to do with a woman's reproductive rights.
 
Except it has nothing to do with fetal rights and everything to do with a woman's reproductive rights.

That's entirely dependent upon which side of the fence you're on.
 
That's entirely dependent upon which side of the fence you're on.

What, the rational side or the wishful thinking side?
 
What, the rational side or the wishful thinking side?

Meh, whatever you wish to say. But the perspective changes depending on what base you are starting with.
 
If a man has the choice to use a condom, than a women should have the choice to have an abortion.. Especially in the cases of Rape, incest, or child pregnancy.
 
If a man has the choice to use a condom, than a women should have the choice to have an abortion.. Especially in the cases of Rape, incest, or child pregnancy.

That's kind of a retarded argument.
 
If a man has the choice to use a condom, than a women should have the choice to have an abortion.. Especially in the cases of Rape, incest, or child pregnancy.

Using a tool to prevent a baby from being conceived =/= eliminating the life of the already conceived baby. What a ridiculously unintelligent thing to say.
 
Except it has nothing to do with fetal rights and everything to do with a woman's reproductive rights.

No, it has everything to do with natural human rights, has never had anything to do with women's rights, and "reproductive rights" is just code.

I'm pro choice. Make it safe. Why have two dead people?

Efficiency. Saves on costs of jailing.
 
No, it has everything to do with natural human rights, has never had anything to do with women's rights, and "reproductive rights" is just code.

No such thing as natural rights, it's a libertarian fantasy. Try again.
 
In a different thread someone was tying natural to Gawd laws. Something about the Gawd given rights we wouldn't have if we didn't believe in Gawd... or some such thing.

Fact is the Bible is thick with Gawd inspired abortions, and not so much any condemnation of them.

It is difficult to hear self described Catholic right wingers carry on because a man in Rome says one thing yet the Bible doesn't back that pronouncement up. It is a world turned upside down to suit of all things a completely unsubstantiated claim by Evangelicals that suddenly abortion is a sin. And by suddenly I mean for the length of the Biblical record abortion was accepted, but now it is a sin.

(Did JC come back with an update after his time on the cross?)
 
Back
Top Bottom