Couple wants you to vote on if they have an abortion or not.

[Bodi]

You did, by the definition you provided. Pro= an argument in the affirmative. An argument for abortion. I am not arguing anyone get an abortion. In my ideal world, no one would. I would never have one. I am pro keeping abortion legal and there is a difference.

No. To encourage is to persuade, or inspire one to something. Being for something is distinctly different. They are not synonyms. They are not the same. I am sorry, you are just having trouble with the language. English is just like math. There is no room for subjective interpretation.

Yes! Thank you! I am pro-choice and for allowing others to smoke. I am not for or against smoking as long as it's done away from me. Again, I am pro legalized smoking, not smoking in general.

If you are pro-choice for smoking, you are for smoking...

I am also pro legalized suicide, yes.

So am I...

I am fine with them removing their baby of course. I don't see a need to kill it though.

How do you propose to keep the baby at 20 weeks alive then? If you don't have a reasonable solution, then you are for killing it...

 

[OKgrannie]

No, there are only two main positions. A person is for abortions or they are against them. Within each category there are sub-divisions, sure, but they fall in line with being against or being for the abortion. To claim anything else is dishonest.

No, you are oversimplifying. Neutrality is a position. You are also shifting gears with kerussll, when one moment you say the person is going to remove the fetus one day before birth, and then shift to 20 weeks. Don't accuse others of dishonesty when you play those games yourself.

 

[Bodi]

No, you are oversimplifying. Neutrality is a position. You are also shifting gears with kerussll, when one moment you say the person is going to remove the fetus one day before birth, and then shift to 20 weeks. Don't accuse others of dishonesty when you play those games yourself.

You are simply missing the point. I have shifted nothing, they are separate points.

She says she does not want to dictate to others what they put in or take out of their body, well, a baby the day before is in her body. That is one point.
She says she is fine with them removing their baby of course and that there is no need to kill it, and I ask how she proposes to do that with a 20 weeker, that is the other point.

Accuse me of dishonesty and prove it. Don't just make a flimsy little claim as a "got you back" kinda thing.

One can't be neutral to an idea. One can be neutral to action though. One might not be sure of their opinion to an idea, but generally that only takes so long and then the opinion is there. One can't be asked about something like abortion or murder or if they like pizza and say, "I am neutral, i have no opinion." Making THAT argument is even less honest. One can not take sides, but they still have their opinion. One cannot enter into a debate and be taken seriously if they start claiming that they are pro-choice, but are neutral to abortion. That is literally stupid. Seriously. I mean it is literally a statement lacking intelligence. Taking sides and stating it means that they are no longer neutral.

I expect another obtuse, off topic and unrealistic answer... please don't disappoint.

 

[kerussll]

You are simply missing the point. I have shifted nothing, they are separate points.

She says she does not want to dictate to others what they put in or take out of their body, well, a baby the day before is in her body. That is one point.
She says she is fine with them removing their baby of course and that there is no need to kill it, and I ask how she proposes to do that with a 20 weeker, that is the other point.

Accuse me of dishonesty and prove it. Don't just make a flimsy little claim as a "got you back" kinda thing.

One can't be neutral to an idea. One can be neutral to action though. One might not be sure of their opinion to an idea, but generally that only takes so long and then the opinion is there. One can't be asked about something like abortion or murder or if they like pizza and say, "I am neutral, i have no opinion." Making THAT argument is even less honest. One can not take sides, but they still have their opinion. One cannot enter into a debate and be taken seriously if they start claiming that they are pro-choice, but are neutral to abortion. That is literally stupid. Seriously. I mean it is literally a statement lacking intelligence. Taking sides and stating it means that they are no longer neutral.

I expect another obtuse, off topic and unrealistic answer... please don't disappoint.

I can't explain my position to you any clearer, so I'm done with this argument. The fact that you think English leaves no room for interpretation (i.e. YOUR interpretation) proves that this is now pointless. I am happy to call pro-life people by whatever term they choose, so long as I understand their arguments because I find it rather obnoxious to insist that they are "pro-forced births" or "anti-women" even though I could use the same logic you've provided here to argue that they are.

Since you've asked, I am in favor of allowing people to choose what to put or keep in their bodies at any time. I think people need to have the right to control their own bodies, and not let the government have any say in what stays inside them. So if the woman for some reason wanted to remove her 20 week old fetus, that is her right. It probably wouldn't survive because it would be too underdeveloped, and a delivery at such a late point would most likely be caused by a medical emergency such as pre-eclampsia. Of course, if it was feasible attempts would be made to save the baby. Women don't endure a pregnancy for 5 months just to flippantly decide to abort it however, no matter how many of these hypothetical situations arise on these forums.

 

[Bodi]

I can't explain my position to you any clearer, so I'm done with this argument. The fact that you think English leaves no room for interpretation (i.e. YOUR interpretation) proves that this is now pointless. I am happy to call pro-life people by whatever term they choose, so long as I understand their arguments because I find it rather obnoxious to insist that they are "pro-forced births" or "anti-women" even though I could use the same logic you've provided here to argue that they are.

Since you've asked, I am in favor of allowing people to choose what to put or keep in their bodies at any time. I think people need to have the right to control their own bodies, and not let the government have any say in what stays inside them. So if the woman for some reason wanted to remove her 20 week old fetus, that is her right. It probably wouldn't survive because it would be too underdeveloped, and a delivery at such a late point would most likely be caused by a medical emergency such as pre-eclampsia. Of course, if it was feasible attempts would be made to save the baby. Women don't endure a pregnancy for 5 months just to flippantly decide to abort it however, no matter how many of these hypothetical situations arise on these forums.

That is the best, most clear and least constrictive statement that you have made. Thank you.