Instigator / Pro
1382
rating
442
debates
45.81%
won
Topic
#6357
The pro choice position is not a consistent position without nihilism
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
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
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret.
Answer all questions directly.
Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.
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.
***Lucy star fire cannot accept, nor any affiliates associated with this individual that has created multiple profiles, otherwise it will be an automatic forfeit on the topic from this individual, serious debates only*****
Round 1
Being pro abortion does require an aspect of nihilism.
If you desire life, want life to exist, do not wish to destroy life, you are opposed to nihilism.
If you wish for all of this, you have to support the rights of life. Life of the born . In order to get that, rights have to be extended to the unborn.
You can't have one without the other. Otherwise you get inconsistency.
The opposing side already agrees without realizing granting a sound mind.
Otherwise you get disharmony just as those that claim they support homosexuality and not for abortion. That's disharmonious.
Claiming that you support life but support birth control is inconsistent as abortion is birth control.
Homosexuality and abortion are two sides of the same coin.
So the same coin has the same basis.
You can't be for the rights of people but will not support those that legally don't have them in a congruent fashion.
In order for the born to have rights, the unborn will have to have theirs in order to get there.
Reproductive health will have to be regarded, respected and protected for it all to get there.
This is the only sound path for pro life folks because the pro abortion folks first line of attack in an argument is to question a justified drawn line.
So what happens is that the line for birth control using abortion is equated to any other birth control.
The value in the birth control that the so called pro life encourage proves to have no greater value that is in birth control known as pregnancy termination.
Technically and legally classifying it as not murder.
Due to living in a society that is not concerned with optimal health, dietary care is neglected, psychological care is neglected, physiological sexual reproductive health is unprotected and thus the unborn is unprotected.
It all starts with optimally caring for ourselves first mandated through government and everything else falls congruently in order.
Otherwise nihilism goes deep into this and we're able to liberate, have liberals, liberal ideas, progress into further liberalism.
So as a product, we do have libertarian/nihilist individuals amongst us as the conditioning has been successful with them.
I've interacted with nihilists and I have engaged on the abortion subject.
I was going to participate in a challenge with them but upon getting clarity of their position, there was nothing inconsistent I could argue with them I could think of.
Now this topic is not about right or wrong, good or bad.
The name of the game is consistency which is always the epicenter.
"If you desire life, want life toexist, do not wish to destroy life, you are opposed to nihilism. If you wish for all of this, you haveto support the rights of life. Life of the born . In order to get that, rightshave to be extended to the unborn. You can't have one without the other.Otherwise you get inconsistency."
Moral values in reality, exist in different frameworks.
You can get one without the other.
Pro-choice does not mean that you wish to destroy life. Even if it did, that does not make it a nihilist position.
"Theopposing side already agrees without realizing granting a sound mind."
Whoa! Hold it there cowboy. I haven’t agreed to anything yet.
"Otherwise you get disharmony just asthose that claim they support homosexuality and not for abortion. That'sdisharmonious. Claiming that you support life butsupport birth control is inconsistent as abortion is birth control."
Homosexuals do not have kids due to not having intercourse with the opposite gender.
Women who abort do not have kids due to eliminating the fetus.
Since you claim that these two are the same, then it means that -every moment you are not having intercourse with the opposite sex- you are being immoral by preventing a possible future life from being born.
I would hate a society where everyone is just breeding constantly, everywhere around me.
To your credit, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind.
"Homosexuality and abortion are twosides of the same coin. So the same coin has the same basis."
Now you delve into physics or whatever this is.
A coin does not have the same basis (for whatever this means).
A coin has two different sides. Head and tails.
"Thisis the only sound path for pro life folks because the pro abortion folks firstline of attack in an argument is to question a justified drawn line."
First: Is the topic pro choice or pro abortion?
Protecting the freedom of choice does not mean to encourage all pregnant women to abort.
Second:I think you misunderstand nihilism.
Why would a nihilist even make excuses?
I am gonna present my argument without further quoting.
The pro-choice position is a consistent position without nihilism.
Nihilists do not believe in objective meaning or value or life, morals, knowledge, by definition.
Being pro-choice itself does not qualify to being a nihilist. Because you are valuing the life and comfort of an existing human or at least his freedom of choice.
The consistent moral framework to being pro-choice would require: valuing existing lives to potential ones.
In the extreme hypothetical case: if given the task of choosing between:
‘the guaranteed continuity of human species in the expense of the current generation’ or ‘The extinction of our species but the comfortable living of our current generation’
Consistently with the forementioned moral framework one would take the second option.
And that is possible without nihilism.
Round 2
"Pro-choice does not mean that you wish to destroy life. Even if it did, that does not make it a nihilist position."
You're conflicting yourself real bad. I was going to say your first sentence was in contradiction. But you beat me to it with the next statement in acquiesce to indicating the possibility of applicability that it sho-nough means that. You have the abortion in order not to support or care for that life that would of been.
Also it's not my position that being pro abortion means the person is a nihilist outright. I'm saying the person will find more consistency in the position being one.
"Whoa! Hold it there cowboy. I haven’t agreed to anything yet."
Like I say I'm not the fastest hands in all the West. I'll allow some time for you to get into your position to draw .
"Since you claim that these two are the same, then it means that -every moment you are not having intercourse with the opposite sex- you are being immoral by preventing a possible future life from being born. "
You know I went back to check and couldn't find where I said abortion and homosexuality are the same.
This is what happens when you don't quote my exact words and counter the exact words used.
It keeps you from misinterpreting, mis-phrasing and rephrasing .
"Homosexuality and abortion are two sides of the same coin."
That's what I stated. Ask me what I mean instead of adding in what you think is meant.
Homosexuality and abortion are two facets connected to the same category but they're two individual facets.
So what is the connection? What is the comparison?
Homosexuality doesn't just mean not having engaging in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.
See you thought you had something here but not so.
Homosexuality is using the sexual organs in tandem with going against their structured formulaic function. Where as with abortion accomplishes the same disruption with a man and woman using theirs where as with any contraception, see.
See the way the opposite side was framing it, it's like saying if you walk to your destination instead of driving the vehicle, you are misusing or going against the vehicle. No you misuse the vehicle by operating it in tandem with a practice that'll perhaps blow up the engine or something of the sort. Now you can't use it to sustain or survive your efficient travel .
"I would hate a society where everyone is just breeding constantly, everywhere around me.
To your credit, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind. "
Whether the opposing side realizes it or not, this is actual nihilist rhetoric. You strongly dislike a race surviving itself. How can you claim to love life, be a supporter of life but are strongly opposed, strongly not like for it to maintain itself to keep existing?
Total inconsistency. You definitely just walked right into that. I shouldn't mind if I'm non nihilist and have no self hatred of myself. If it wasn't for breeding I surely wouldn't have myself so I'm not going to conflict that principle. That's total self negation.
"Now you delve into physics or whatever this is.
A coin does not have the same basis (for whatever this means).
A coin has two different sides. Head and tails. "
Yes two faces to it. Two facets that are directly interrelated. You will find one with the other upon coming across the coin with such.
"First: Is the topic pro choice or pro abortion?
Protecting the freedom of choice does not mean to encourage all pregnant women to abort."
Oh interrelated again, both. To be pro choice of abortion is pro abortion. Not one without the other.
"Second:I think you misunderstand nihilism.
Why would a nihilist even make excuses?"
Just understand what I mean by nihilism and go from there. Argue my positioning. That's it. Don't take the status quo and consensus of anything.
It depends on the context when you ask the question.
"Being pro-choice itself does not qualify to being a nihilist. Because you are valuing the life and comfort of an existing human or at least his freedom of choice."
It absolutely qualifies being a nihilist. A nihilist to what I mean from my position , whatever you want to call this type person, you don't like the term nihilist, whatever, the person has not the same regard for life as a true pro life individual.
The pro abortionist that claims to have the same value or close to it would be better off taking the lesser to no value that fits better in that position which would make sense for a nihilist.
A nihilist, the type I'm talking about is not a life advocate. I don't know what the opposing side has in mind about a nihilist.
But I've interacted with nihilists that take on the pro abortionist stance. That have so to speak vocalized what the opposing side has stated.
Which was : "I would hate a society where everyone is just breeding constantly"
That coincide with statements such as of the population being so called problematic so why not start with being all for abortion at least?
You can't claim being for the life of others, particularly the pregnant women and not being in conflict.
"The consistent moral framework to being pro-choice would require: valuing existing lives to potential ones.
In the extreme hypothetical case: if given the task of choosing between:
‘the guaranteed continuity of human species in the expense of the current generation’ or ‘The extinction of our species but the comfortable living of our current generation’
Consistently with the forementioned moral framework one would take the second option.
And that is possible without nihilism."
That is completely nihilistic to destroy yourself. Furthermore with the unjustifiable reasoning of comfort. There are several instances of discomfort that people have to endure to support their families that bring in the next generations. So it's non nihilism and the self will , self love to actually support and continue life regardless.
The question is, is there really a thing called "potential life"?
Once you removed the concept of "potential life" and realize life itself is structured to sustain itself, you have no room to argue you pro abortionist, pro choice people.
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
About abortion?