Being for pro-choice and not for abortion is a conflicting stance.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- What was the contradiction or law of logic violated?
- Yes, someone can oppose wars but respect a person's decision to fight in one and believe they should have this legal right.
- Yeah, you can be against Christmas, and believe people have a right to celebrate it. Now you are starting to get it!
- Exactly. You can be personally opposed to gay marriage while believing it should be legal.
- 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 ?
- Asking questions like this is irrelevant to the debate, and if you begin to question the motivation rather than the consistency of the propositions, you may as well have already lost. It seems that pro simply has no symmetry breaker for this analogy or any of the ones he brought up, so it seems prudent to end the debate here. I will show you a quote from Barrack Obama from his initial presidential campaign where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them." So if you want to know reasons why people would take views like this, here is one.
- Note that I endorse none of the views expressed by Obama, or expressed by someone who is pro-choice on abortion, but if pro makes a claim that there is a contradiction, he best should provide that contradiction. It is trivial that people can be against an action and want it to be legal.