Instigator / Pro
1389
rating
433
debates
45.38%
won
Topic
#6156
It can be demonstrated that the pro choice abortion position is contradicting.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1493
rating
17
debates
35.29%
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.
Round 1
Quite simply, the pro choice/ pro abortion position is often in favor of the rights of the born.
But not in favor of the unborn.
In order to obtain the rights, establish the rights, value and respect the rights of the born, they have to be extended to the unborn.
The rights of the unborn have to be established, respected and valued.
So because they're taken away, it eliminates the potential for everything else.
They were taken away. For any person born, breathing that has a right to life automatically includes any stage of development and progress of that life.
The law stepped in and amortized and truncated the value of life and made abortion legal.
Which is the legal killing of life upon a particular phase and progression of it.
A conversation I was in on discord that was recorded and posted to J. TALKS TO THE PEOPLE RADIO YouTube channel titled "heated and scorching debate - taxation is theft/abortion", the person I spoke with was "pro life".
Which turned out to be a shallow position. It was discovered the person was actually "pro choice".
The standard was not actually life. When the basis is not life, you're not in support of life as you have some other factor that trumps it.
In this case, it was the factor of consent. If an individual didn't consent to sex, abortion is therefore justified.
I explained to the person this is a similar argument for a pro abortionist. You call yourself "pro life" based on a pro abortionist talking point.
The pro abortionist argues that the person did not consent to pregnancy so therefore, termination of pregnancy is justified. It's the same factor of consent.
Whether no consent to sexual intercourse or pregnancy itself, it doesn't change the value of life. So the life is not what is important, it is the circumstances in which one should be justified in choosing or opting to abort.
In essence, a pro choice position, that person actually had.
Whether no consent to sexual intercourse or pregnancy itself, the person did not agree to a particular outcome. The person acted as responsibly as possible and circumstances beyond the person's control overrides the wishes of that person which constitutes force.
So the pro abortion stance is in conflict as much as arbitrary in terms of drawing the line for allowing termination to be executed.
I understand but so many weeks, a term, a trimester. Some argue justified no later than or justified much later and so forth.
I'm also going to add this to the fire. The pro life position is conflicted if the person believes in or supports contraception. The pro choice folks will use this argument against pro life people to highlight inconsistency.
i been saying that all week
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet