Greetings and thanks.
Hopefully this is for real. Let not the opposing side take this wrong but so many newcomers take the challenge and don't show up to participate.
It is disheartening. But I digress, I shall go on.
Yes.
To make this easier for me I'm going to plug much of what I put out in the topic forum using the typical talking points that will take away ammo that the opposing side may or was going to fire at me with.
"Pro choice, refers to the right of a pregnant woman to choose.
So if I am pro-choice that is my viewpoint.
Which doesn't necessarily have to mean that I am pro-abortion.
One can de indifferent."
This is the point of view from an individual and probably taken from most individuals unaware of the conflict they're in.
My follow up response was the following:
"You're pro choice of abortion when the option has been indeed selected for abortion."
Ok I stated that because whatever the result of a choice is that you're supporting, you're in line with that result. You simply cannot disconnect the result from the choice and I'm going to establish this point ultimately with this individual that caused to indirectly concede and terminate the point with a circular and or insufficient basis.
Let's move on to the attempted counterpoint that this individual made and probably what others will make or have made and perhaps what the opposing side will make if the opposing side is not a "no show".
Here was the attempted counterpoint which I abridged a little as some details were unwarranted.
"I'm pro the right of the individual woman to choose.
As for abortion, I am indifferent with regards to the surgical and medical choices of others.
So am I pro-abortion?
No.
Am I anti-abortion.
No."
This individual says no . Not pro or for supporting abortion. This individual also says no. Not against it.
Not for it nor against it. But then why support a choice that ultimately leads to what you don't support? There's conflict right there. Can't have one without the other. You may as well be all the way or not at all. Trying to compromise and half step just appears as lacking the integrity, fidelity to commit truly and believing in what you think is right but not truly sure so you straddle the fence with this expressed position of compromise.
Let's see what I said in response to this.
"You're pro right of the woman to choose what?"
I'm responding to what's in italics from this individual.
"So am I pro-abortion?
As in, do I unreservedly promote the procedure as a positive method of birth control.
No."
Here my response continues:
"This is a contradiction. Whether you and others realize it. See abortion is soooo ugly that even you yourself can't really say you support it but people love to have freedom too. So it's this sort of dance around the issue.
But when you say "support the choice ", people are trying to be indirect.
Support the choice of what? Of what?
The complete reasoning to support any choice is tied to its result.
Supporting a choice for the sake of supporting a choice is circular. Supporting freedom for the sake of freedom is circular. It all depends on what is done with that choice and freedom to make the difference.
So when you say you're indifferent, that's exactly that. You have not taken a stance of reasoning that actually makes the difference when you're explaining it in terms of "I encourage the choice because you have a choice so encourage the choice, respect choice."
So and I'll say for what, for what?
For the choice and we're just going in a circle."
Next is the response from the individual from what I stated above. Again, shortening it to what is necessary.
"The individual pregnant woman.
Which as I adequately described, doesn't necessarily imply that I am either pro or anti abortion."
This individual is saying that the support goes out to the CHOICE of the individual pregnant woman.
For whatever right. Why? Why?
This individual never could justify it and I'll demonstrate with an analogy ultimately.
My follow up response was the following:
"The individual pregnant woman that chose abortion, you support that decision, so you indeed supported the choice of abortion which makes a pro abortion stance .
You can be indirect in all your language. The bottomline will stick out.
You support the choice of the woman choosing what?
Whatever her choice is right .
So you're pro all of it which would include abortion.
Thank you."
What else did this individual have to say?
"Yes, that is exactly what I stated.
I support her right to choose abortion.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that I am pro-abortion."
Notice how the points from this person are becoming circular. There's not much depth of a basis for anything. It's just "I support the choice for the sake of". That's circular. The person specifically admits this but when you're proud to acknowledge the shallow nature of your stance because you haven't thought about it or you know you should know better, you tend to just gloss over it.
"I support her right to choose abortion.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that I am pro-abortion."
"This is a contradiction.
Is this also true with a person committing first degree murder ?
You can say you're not pro first degree murder.
Do you support the choice of a first degree murderer whether the choice was made to commit it again in the first degree or not?"
Now finally here is where I draw out the illustration as a thought experiment. The individual has yet to give a sufficient basis for the position held.
Due to this, when asked this question about first degree murder, the same shallow circular basis was given.
Either because the contradiction is seen coming and the individual doesn't wish to face it or this hasn't seriously been thought about what makes the difference between not supporting one versus the other.
"To be Pro-choice but to not allow choice, is perhaps contradictory."
Totally off subject.
"So being pro-choice but not necessarily pro-abortion is a perfectly reasonable position."
Circular . The individual just repeating the point because there's nothing else to say.
"No, I do not support the choices made by first degree murderers."
"Because I do not support the choices made by first degree murderers."
CIRCULAR.
It's like you ask why and you get a "just because " or "I said so" and that's it.
So there you have it. The position falls flat right there. When asked about why not support the choice of the first degree murderer, the presumable reason was avoided to be explained because inconsistency more than likely would be detected.
This is either again if I already said it a realization of inconsistency and or something that hasn't been given much thought to what separates one position from another and the in depth basis behind it .
This is why this subjects remain in discussion and debate. People haven't really given much thought to think critically for themselves and can't help much in defense of their stance upon being challenged.
Stop going along with the okey doke. Don't just stand on something but know why you stand on it.
When you don't know, you'll just exhibit circular reasoning/explanation as this individual has displayed.
Less so than being pro life.