Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
375
debates
43.07%
won
Topic
#5489
Being Pro choice is being pro abortion/homosexuality. Part 2
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1308
rating
324
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
I threw that last part in there at the last minute just to stir up the conventional thinkers.
Two sides of the same coin no doubt.
Round 1
"Being pro choice would only mean being pro abortion if everyone chose to have an abortion. But majority of people choose not to have an abortion. So you could say that being pro choice is being pro anti-abortion by same logic. How can person be both pro abortion and pro anti abortion? But according to my opponent, thats whats going on."
I wanted to get these points across. I believe I made my point on this topic already.
The points from the draft didn't save so I'll reiterate, paraphrase what I had.
I think I see something I didn't respond to before so good of coming back to this .
Being pro choice is being pro all the results, possible results from the choices in context of what you're pro over or support.
This is because the result is not disconnected from the choice. You support all of the above made by the choice because the basis is in the choice alone.
Being pro choice can't be solely anti abortion because it depends on the choice.
But you can be anti and pro abortion at the same time or separate times. It depends on the choice of one individual, that individual changing the choice perhaps multiple times. It depends on the choice of multiple individuals so you can be pro abortion for one based on that person's choice while the contrary stance for another see.
Pro choice is all of the above while pro life , true pro life in its consistency is only one option.
But you can be anti and pro abortion at the same time
What is your definition of "pro abortion" and what is your definition of "anti abortion"?
Because we are not going to get anywhere without a clear definition.
Round 2
The answer you're looking for is right in what I just stated. You just cut it off at the first line taking a snippet there.
"But you can be anti and pro abortion at the same time or separate times. It depends on the choice of one individual, that individual changing the choice perhaps multiple times. It depends on the choice of multiple individuals so you can be pro abortion for one based on that person's choice while the contrary stance for another see."
Being pro abortion is opposite of anti abortion and anti abortion is opposite of pro abortion. You can hold these conflicting positions at once based on the above because each individual decision in regards to abortion or non abortion you respect conflicts while simultaneously or consecutively.
Either giving support or strength to the movement or action of abortion or discouragement in help to prevent abortion. That is pro and anti abortion. That is pro choice. Remember, the basis is in the choice but the choice is not detached from the result.
Keep this in mind, that's the key. It is not detached from the choice and point.
Just supporting the choice for the sake of just supporting choice is circular and is just regurgitated vacuous brainwashed garbage. Just to be a reporter of current day propaganda news. When people argue based on this thin stance, they cannot argue passed what they have been programmed and or made desensitized to.
Think of it like this in regards to pro choice being for all of the above.
Instead of being pro vegan, in regards to vegetables, I'm pro choice. Which means any choice of vegetable you consume which could be on a vegan diet, I'm for. I support the choice. Well choice of what ? I support the choice of you eating any vegetable.
I asked somebody that question. Support the choice of what? The person just avoided going specific as the person knew he or she was trapped into conceding so the person went broadly speaking moving the goalpost off subject.
I support the choice of you eating any vegetable.
There's not one vegetable as opposed to another or only vegan prepared dishes that have no animal products.
I'm not against you choosing any one. So does this mean, I support carrot consumption? Yes. Does it mean I support lettuce, onions, celery consumption?
Yes, all of the above, all vegetables. This is why my position of choice encompasses all of the above . When you support it all, it doesn't matter which option chosen. It doesn't make a difference at which one you chose. You support each or every option.
They all have the same value because the value is in the choice alone or I take the pro choice stance is because I see that all options have the same value.
What is every option in terms of pregnancy? To bring it full term or not .
Pro choice is encompassing all of that because regardless of what is selected, the basis in the choice, not one option.
Pro life, the basis is in one option or the one choice.
Again, you are confusing
"Supporting person's choice to have or not to have abortion"
With
"Supporting abortion"
What is the difference between the two?
Apparently, the one who supports choice, by your logic, also supports birth, since most people choose to give birth.
However, the one supporting abortion would not at any point support birth.
The one who supports abortion means he supports abortion in all cases, where the one who supports choice in most cases supports birth.
The woman who supports abortion would have abortion if she gets pregnant, where the woman who supports choice in many cases gives birth.
Round 3
"Again, you are confusing"
You should know by now as long as we been interacting , you ask questions to get out of your confusion.
I understand this is not a strong suit of yours as well as others.
Being a conventional box thinker hinders you guys as well.
"What is the difference between the two?"
What do you think?
"Apparently, the one who supports choice, by your logic, also supports birth, since most people choose to give birth.
However, the one supporting abortion would not at any point support birth.
The one who supports abortion means he supports abortion in all cases, where the one who supports choice in most cases supports birth."
You apparently are using different definitions for these positions.
So let me give you my position for you to argue against.
Pro choice when I say it means you support all of the above. It doesn't mean ONLY abortion.
So if I support abortion, I didn't say I ONLY support abortion. You have to pay attention to that word "only".
Just like I made that example about the vegetables. I've provided plenty of explanation but you're thinking is stuck on what pro choice means to you.
This is what I mean by taking your mind out of a box so you can see things, understand things beyond your personal perspective.
You're not arguing against your own perspective. You're arguing against mine which evidently is different from yours with just about everything from definitions and terms to identify specific stances.
"The woman who supports abortion would have abortion if she gets pregnant, where the woman who supports choice in many cases gives birth."
This is the first I ever heard of these definitions for this. So pro choice means basically semi or mostly pro life based on what you're saying.
Which begins to sound conflicting.
If I was working with those definitions, this topic wouldn't exist most likely.
I believe from the start of this from the first round and part 1 I made it clear of what I was talking about.
So get back on track with that before you commit a strawman moving the goalpost fallacy.
Which begins to sound conflicting
It sounds conflicting to you, but they are neither pro abortion neither anti abortion, but pro choice, which is neither pro nor anti abortion.
Round 4
Well elaborate, explain and prove no conflict.
That's what this stage is for. This isn't small chat time.
Stop being lazy.
False dichotomy.
Its not "pro abortion or anti abortion" as only two choices.
Person can be in some cases pro abortion and in some cases anti abortion, making it neither pro abortion neither anti abortion, because the person neither wishes abortion in all cases, neither opposes abortion in all cases.
Since "pro abortion" means supporting abortion in all cases, and "anti abortion" means opposing abortion in all cases, it follows that pro choice is neither.
Round 5
"Person can be in some cases pro abortion and in some cases anti abortion, making it neither pro abortion neither anti abortion, because the person neither wishes abortion in all cases, neither opposes abortion in all cases."
Even in what you just said, the person is pro abortion in some cases which falls under the pro choice position.
Then you double talk with the "neither " rhetoric.
You really have to think this out more. Being pro choice includes pro abortion as you said in some cases. Even in all cases, it doesn't matter. Which supports what homosexuality amounts to which you never gave a rebuttal to at all at any point in this debate so I take you conceding on that portion of it.
Think about it as you cling to this "all cases" idea. Being pro choice you respect and acknowledge the choice right. If the choice in all cases was to abort, it doesn't change the position of being pro choice because the person is still technically behind that choice. The choice of what? Abortion so the person is behind the choice of abortion. All of this is connected in one position so it is dishonest to cherry pick at it and shows a lack of integrity.
Not to mention half heartedness just because it sounds too grim. That's the grim reality you couldn't refute.
"Since "pro abortion" means supporting abortion in all cases, and "anti abortion" means opposing abortion in all cases, it follows that pro choice is neither."
Again that's what it means to you. You just contradicted yourself. This is what it means to you and you're not even adhering with integrity to your own definition.
You just said "Person can be in some cases pro abortion".
This either falls under the pro choice or pro life position. The conceding is right here, it's not subtle at all . No use in trying to evade that.
If you say it falls under pro life, then you've just negated the reality and point of having these two opposing positions which is fallacious.
This is what happens trying to disconnect one from another, a result from a choice saying I'm for a decision of something to happen but not the actual occurrence of that decision. It's all one scenario. You want a sandwich but reject the bread or everything altogether that makes a sandwich to just get the cheese.
I want a sandwich but I'm just eating the cheese calling it a sandwich. No it's a package deal. That is the teleological constitution of this.
You're negating the nature of what a sandwich means and negating what the meaning of a choice is with what comes with it, it's action .
There's no separation of the two. You may want the separation because it sounds better or just have not thought out what something completely entails as a whole .
The person neither wishes abortion in all cases, neither opposes abortion in all cases.
So person is not pro abortion (someone who wishes abortion in all cases).
Pro choice means supporting choice in all cases, and most people dont choose to have abortion anyway.
Same logic applies to homosexuality.
Person who is pro choice doesnt wish for all people to be homosexuals.
Further, it would make your topic a literal nonsense, as you argue that pro choice people are those who wish for everyone to have an abortion, but also wish for everyone to be homosexual.
How the fuck does that even work.