Instigator / Pro
0
1496
rating
159
debates
26.73%
won
Topic

Being for pro-choice and not for abortion is a conflicting stance.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
22,000
Contender / Con
0
1908
rating
76
debates
94.74%
won
Description
~ 655 / 5,000

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.

Should be straightforward enough. If not, send questions regarding the clarity of the topic prior to accepting this exchange.

Definitely aim to be clear on what is being communicated here.

Round 1
Pro
There's a reason, individual reason why someone will say I'm pro-choice.

Ask a person are they for abortion. Often times , they'll respond with the "I'm pro-choice". Why?

It sounds nicer and it doesn't sound ugly. Whether you, they know it or not, like it or not, accept it or not, as Stone Cold Steve Austin would say, the bottomline.

If I'm not, absolutely not for , I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR ABORTION but I am for the choice to abortion, what's the difference in outcome?

Oh, I'm for the freedom of choice. Why? Well this is America, I'm an American citizen. So......so what?

So what? The land of the free, ok. So a person is supporting freedom for the sake of. Maybe there's a principle there. Well that same principle can be there for those that want to be free  to choose to murder, steal , etc.

But I digress. I'm not arguing the comparisons of deeds .

What I am pointing out is the truth of saying I support the choice to take the bus or choice to walk to get where I'm going so to speak.

I support the choice of whichever you choose. Why?

I support the choice. If I'm truly against any of the choices, I can't support the choice period. 

You , the negative side, prove that I can champion choice and yet be against one of the choices at the same time.

Regardless for instance of whichever vegetable you choose, I'm not against consumption of any vegetable as an option for you. It's up to you, I support your choice as either or any choice works.

When I ask are you for abortion, you the person being asked can't even answer directly with a yes or no. 

A "yes " is too ugly. Let's flip it and you say "I'm pro life and pro choice". Is that in conflict ?

Well let's look at the logic. Unless someone defines it a different way, you support for babies to be born, not killed. So if you support that, why support the choice that can counter that?

I'm not for abortion but support the choice that can initiate the implementation.

No, no,no, this is that pure liberal brainwashing going around particularly in this generation deluding the masses.


Con
  • This is going to be simple. Pro choice is a thesis that a woman should have the option to make the choice to kill her unborn child. My argument is someone can be against abortion, but still believe that someone should have the option to have one. Just like someone can be against certain things people say/the rhetoric they use, but still believe people should have free speech. 
  • If pro is claiming that someone who a woman should have the option to make the choice to kill her unborn child cannot be against abortion, pro needs to demonstrate the contradiction in these two stances, as long as we take the propositional form of one to be "P∧~P" or "P and not P," P representing a proposition. 
  • The rest from Mall is an incoherent ramble. 

Round 2
Pro
"This is going to be simple"

Anything can be simple such as following your own rules.
I digress.

"Pro choice is a thesis that a woman should have the option to make the choice to kill her unborn child."

Let's follow you to maintain razor sharp accuracy.

"Pro choice " has two parts.  One is "pro" which is favor or support. Do you agree?

The other is " choice " which is a decision.

So to leave it tight at face value, it's the support of a decision or deciding.

Question is, the support of deciding what?

Well in the context of this debate, abortion. The context is abortion. Just here , I have to make sure you keep it straight, straightforward and honest.

The context is not supporting choices for the sake of ability to do so. There's a context.

Now do you support abortion?

What you say to avoid the answer, you say without, without saying"yes" or "no", you answer indirectly saying you're pro-choice.

Ok, my next question, you're pro-choice of what? You're support the choice to what or of what?

It's that "of what " or "to what" that ties you down ultimately. You supporting a choice doesn't just hang out there without it being attached to anything.

Again, if you're against abortion, you cannot be for the choice of it. So you would not say "no, I'm not for abortion" being that you're not for the choice of it, having the choice to decide either way or both, same difference.

You can call the truth a ramble all you want . Simply means you have no rebuttal. Positively means most likely you have nothing else better to do when you choose to engage with what you, you, you consider rambling.

Complete asinine fatuity on your part. I digress once more.

You mentioned about a person "should" have an option to choose. That's not my contention about what should be but just what it is ,what a person supports.

The topic is regarding what somebody supports.

"My argument is someone can be against abortion, but still believe that someone should have the option to have one. "

Completely illogical. In other words or analogously speaking, I can be against rape, but believe or support and stand behind somebody making the choice to rape or not either way.

I don't support rape, I'm going to support your choice to do it.

That's incorrect.

I'm not going to support your choice the same way just as if you were to choose rape. What that would mean is " I support the choice period". However, I'm not for rape, period.

This brainwashed liberal foolishness, oh the evidence of it is here written all over this site.

When you say you support choice period, which would include unwanted outcomes, why would it be logical to be for something across the board?

You have to dig a little deeper than this, think more critically and not so superficially.

Now presumably that you won't have a response to any of this, you'd call it a ramble, I'd figure.

I'd supposed that to be the case which is just a copout move.

"Just like someone can be against certain things people say/the rhetoric they use, but still believe people should have free speech. "

It's the same contradiction in that example. Being against something specifically but yet being free to say it.

Think about it. "Against certain things ", certain things such as what?

See, leaving it broad like the way you put , it's easier to hide the ambiguity.

I ask do you like this restaurant. You say "it's not bad, it's alright ". That's not really clear to the likeability.

If I'd start speaking sexual obscenities to somebody's child, that child's parent that is against what I'm saying will not support the freedom of me saying those things.

Why? That parent supporting my choice to say how much, how little is out because they do not support me saying those things, they do not support the choice of saying those things.

They want nothing to do with it because they do not want their children to have anything to do with any talk like that.

See when we get specific in rhetoric, not being broad, it gets grounded.

Let's give another example to show how far you're thinking this thing through.

A highly suicidal person that is susceptible to harming and killing themselves based on the language of others, if I'm not for people killing themselves , I don't support freedom of choice to say any ole thing.

As the elders say "Watch your language!"

You're position falls short and is shortsighted.

"If pro is claiming that someone who a woman should have the option to make the choice to kill her unborn child cannot be against abortion, pro needs to demonstrate the contradiction in these two stances"

I've done so. So you can tell me what is the part where I have done so you're not understanding.

Only thing that doesn't fit my position is the "should " part. I'm not arguing what should be and not be. I'm just showing where the contradiction comes in.

So you need to for once, take a point or two that I've made and challenge it. Question it, pick it a part. Test it for consistency, examine it as I break it down.

You steady ask for an argument but I don't believe you know how to cross examine like lawyers.

", as long as we take the propositional form of one to be "P∧~P" or "P and not P," P representing a proposition.
The rest from Mall is an incoherent ramble. "

That propositional stuff is like ramble because I don't understand it. So it must be anything that is ramble to you, it's because you don't understand it.

Why not try to seek understanding?

Why don't you all ask questions to seek understanding?

You make yourselves appear scared. Are you afraid you're going to be trapped?

If you get yourself in a trap, the key to get out of it is just to give an honest answer.

Okey doke.



Con
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
Let us continue with the analogies as it'll get more and more silly as we go.

The parent and child illustration is just one relatable experience.

There are several other examples to be made about freedom of speech so called but that horse is dead and buried.

I'm against war. I'm against people fighting, getting killed but I do support you as a person fighting in the war. Huh? Well I'm against the war but for freedom of choice of you electing to go .

I'm for you choosing to get your head blown off at the same time I'm against people fighting to get their heads ultimately blown off .

See, "freedom of choice" is an abstract way, a more mitigated way of something that could be put more negatively. 

You notice, "freedom of choice" is an incomplete, unspecified statement. That's because I'm going to ask the person that says that, the "freedom of choice" in what or to do what?"

I support people's choice in Christmas celebration while I'm vehemently against Christmas celebration. I'm against same sex marriage. I do not support same sex marriage while supporting a person's choice to marry the same sex. Totally paradoxical. It's another way of saying you support something indirectly or without specification because you support either choice and outcome just the same.

Now people may not like the reality of this but it does nevertheless expose the inconsistency in their position.

Now either own up to it or reconsider the stance. Polish it, make it more sound, etc . 


Con
a. No contradiction is being against abortion and pro-choice
  • This is simply obvious. Pro-choice is not entailed as a thesis that supports abortion, just that people should have the legal right to such. So someone can be against abortion but want it to be legal anyway. Now if pro is arguing that this is logically impossible he needs to show the set of propositions that come in conflict. 
So to leave it tight at face value, it's the support of a decision or decision.
  • It is the support of people having the right to make a decision, not the decision. Similarly, someone can support the right of someone to climb Mount Everest and not actually support the dangerous decision. 

Completely illogical. 
  • What was the contradiction or law of logic violated? 
I'm against war. I'm against people fighting, getting killed but I do support you as a person fighting in the war. Huh? Well I'm against the war but for freedom of choice of you electing to go .
  • Yes, someone can oppose wars but respect a person's decision to fight in one and believe they should have this legal right. 
I support people's choice in Christmas celebration while I'm vehemently against Christmas celebration
  • Yeah, you can be against Christmas, and believe people have a right to celebrate it. Now you are starting to get it! 
I'm against same sex marriage. I do not support same sex marriage while supporting a person's choice to marry the same sex. 
  • Exactly. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage while believing it should be legal.

Round 4
Pro
"This is simply obvious. Pro-choice is not entailed as a thesis that supports abortion, just that people should have the legal right to such."

So a person that supports the right to choose abortion doesn't support abortion itself.

What would be the point in supporting the choice and being against its outcome?

I have a feeling I'm going to have to reiterate this question to you, the people, the world.

Although I suspect you of being a question dodger, I'll go ahead in justice's name.

" So someone can be against abortion but want it to be legal anyway. "

I'm against murder but legalize it. What does it mean in your mind to be against abortion?

When I'm against something, I resist it, refuse it but what is it to you ?

"Now if pro is arguing that this is logically impossible he needs to show the set of propositions that come in conflict."

If I show them, will you actually respond to them?

Here we go again.

"I'm against war. I'm against people fighting, getting killed but I do support you as a person fighting in the war. Huh? Well I'm against the war but for freedom of choice of you electing to go .

I'm for you choosing to get your head blown off at the same time I'm against people fighting to get their heads ultimately blown off ."

"It is the support of people having the right to make a decision, not the decision. "

Ok for what? This is the part you're not backing up with any kind of logic.

Supporting for the sake of is circular, it is a fallacy.

"Similarly, someone can support the right of someone to climb Mount Everest and not actually support the dangerous decision. "

Contradiction.

"What was the contradiction or law of logic violated? "

I'll actually answer your questions. Supporting the entitled power of choosing to do something dangerous and not supporting that dangerous effect is in conflict. Why approve of choosing to do wrong but against the wrong itself?

Totally illogical. It's like supporting pedophilia which includes the choices but be against the ultimate act.

If you go to the media with this junk , nobody will see you as a person not out of your head.
With abortion, it doesn't seem silly because the brainwashing agenda has succeeded. We haven't gotten there with pedophilia yet.

But there are those working on it.

"Yes, someone can oppose wars but respect a person's decision to fight in one and believe they should have this legal right. "

First off , it's not about respecting a decision. Don't move the goal post now. It's about being for , pushing for someone to go into something, the very something that is negative/against what the person is pulling for. Totally paradoxical.

"I support people's choice in Christmas celebration while I'm vehemently against Christmas celebration"

"Yeah, you can be against Christmas, and believe people have a right to celebrate it. Now you are starting to get it! "

I do get the contradiction yes.

Reread what I just said. I SUPPORT THE CHOICE to DO IT while being AGAINST IT BEING DONE .

THE CHOICE AND THE ACTION ARE CONNECTED.

Your logic and those alike namely liberalized political policy is separating what logically comes together.

"I'm against same sex marriage. I do not support same sex marriage while supporting a person's choice to marry the same sex. "

"Exactly. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage while believing it should be legal."

Ok why is that? What is the point in pushing for something to be legal that I do not push for ?

I'm against illicit drug use. I stop it , shut it down , restrict it where I can and yet push and support illicit drug use to be legal .

If that isn't hypocritical, there's no such thing as having two different faces.

What would be the point in supporting the choice and being against its outcome?

Can you answer that with a logical explanation so that it makes sense?

Just concede that you can't . The choice and the action are ...you guessed it ..connected.



Con
a. No contradiction is being against abortion and pro-choice
  • For pro to have won this debate, all he needed to show was one logical contradiction between wanting abortion to be legal, and actually being morally against abortion (P∧~P). Rather than doing so, he continues to go on incoherent tirades.  
What would be the point in supporting the choice and being against its outcome?
  • The debate is only on whether these two stances can exist without contradiction. You don't have to know what the point is or why they have these values
Supporting for the sake of is circular, it is a fallacy.
  • There are many reasons someone amy support something. 
First off , it's not about respecting a decision. Don't move the goal post now. It's about being for , pushing for someone to go into something, the very something that is negative/against what the person is pulling for. Totally paradoxical.
  • Yes, it is, in order for it to be analogous to the debate resolution because pro-choice is a thesis that stipulates elective abortion should be legal. 
Reread what I just said. I SUPPORT THE CHOICE to DO IT while being AGAINST IT BEING DONE .
  • Yeah, no contradiction between these two propositions 

"I'm against same sex marriage. I do not support same sex marriage while supporting a person's choice to marry the same sex. "
"Exactly. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage while believing it should be legal."
Ok why is that? What is the point in pushing for something to be legal that I do not push for ?