"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.
Need votes to validate your truth. Keywords your truth.
vote needed
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
>Reason for Decision: Con has a clear argument. 'Pro-choice' entails supporting the legal right for a mother to choose whether or not to have an abortion, whereas 'for abortion' entails preferring abortion to other options.
Con also has better legibility. Quote blocks are far superior to quotation marks when it comes to quoting your opponents arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must provide some assessment of both sides' arguments, even if those assessments are general. The voter awards points without any stated assessment of Pro's arguments, so the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
Talk about not having a clue.
It's alright, maybe someday in this life, you guys, some how.
Man what a great argument. It was so good you must have forgotten to tag me it was so good.
Wrong wrong wrong.
'pro-choice' is to 'for abortion' as 'pro- freedom of speech' is to 'for Holocaust denial'
pro-choice legislation allows abortion, but does not endorse it.
freedom of speech legislation (in the U.S.) allows Holocaust denial, but does not endorse it.
Certainly a large proportion if not all of Holocaust deniers are supporters of free speech, but this doesn't mean that freedom of speech is bad. I can think that every abortion has negative utility and still be pro-choice, just as I can be pro- freedom of speech and still think that Holocaust denial is bad.
There's a reason that it's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion.