• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should be "pro-choice" be renamed to "anti-life"?

Should be "pro-choice" renamed to "anti-life"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • No

    Votes: 28 87.5%

  • I dunno

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Total voters
    32
liblady said:
human, yes. a person, no.
Click to expand...

I believe that they are a person. Others may define what personhood is for themselves, but I think its wrong to kill a human life because someone believes it isn't a person. We did the same thing with slavery and that was wrong as well.
 
digsbe said:
I believe that they are a person. Others may define what personhood is for themselves, but I think its wrong to kill a human life because someone believes it isn't a person. We did the same thing with slavery and that was wrong as well.
Click to expand...

it's "human life" NOT a human life. i don't argue that once a fetus reaches viability it's a life, but a zygote is not A human life, it has the potential to become a human life.
 
liblady said:
it's "human life" NOT a human life. i don't argue that once a fetus reaches viability it's a life, but a zygote is not A human life, it has the potential to become a human life.
Click to expand...

Science says otherwise. Conditions of the person are not a measure if its a person. That my friend is a fact
 
X Factor said:
I have no problem with this, but pro-choicers do.
Click to expand...

Mostly because some pro-choicers (like myself) are Anti-Abortion, but still believe that it should be legal for various reasons.

It's the same way people who are for legalizing pot are "pro-legalization" as opposed to "pro-pot" because some of them don't really like pot, just understand why it is economically valid to legalize it.
 
Last edited:

You guys do know the issues aren't the same right? One isn't a balance of rights the other is, making the conclusion on what your stance would be totally different.
 
Henrin said:
You guys do know the issues aren't the same right? One isn't a balance of rights the other is, making the conclusion on what your stance would be totally different.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, that's why it's an analogy.
 

Conservatives like you are the reason I'm not a democrat. I think this is a good rule of thumb for many things in life.
 
Henrin said:
An analogy that doesn't work apparently.
Click to expand...

Erm, why? The point is still valid, you can support something being a legal option without necessarily supporting the thing itself. I think people should be able to swear profusely or show nudity on T.V.

I personally wouldn't necessarily watch shows that did so, but I still think it is their right to do so.
 

Thank you so much for this post.:2wave:
 

I'm glad you took time out of your day to stop hating Muslims and start hating on pregnant woman with a very difficult choice to make.

Congratulations, you're learning.
 

If someone believes in the first amendment and therefor believes that people should be able to say racist things but the person doesn't like the idea of saying racist things does that make them a pro-racist person? I don't like abortions but in general I kind of think it's something that women should have as an option.

Pro-abortion means you favor people having abortions I haven't met many people in favor of this ever. Pro choice means you support people being able to choose. That's what it means to me anyways.
 
Maybe you believe in it because you think it shields you from judgment.
 
I may not personally like somebody's actions, but until their actions infringe upon my constitutionally given rights I cannot and will not assert any authority or force over them.
Click to expand...

Either you believe the child has a right to life or not. It is not necessary to personally suffer a particular crime/event for it to "infringe upon". From the perspective of the child, you are claiming to not care because it is not you personally.
 

Its not about supporting it or not supporting it. Its about that they are not the same on the basis of rights and you are comparing them as if they are. Being allowed to smoke pot is a right that a person has that doesn't affect anyone else other than the pot smoker. The woman having an abortion affects more than just her right to her body and is a in fact a balance of rights between two parties that must be judged on a case to case basis to see which rights of each party are in play to allow the possibility to make logical conclusion to what the decision should actually be.

Comparing it as if its cut and dry does NOT work.

Btw, I like your stances on your examples.
 

I consider myself to be pro-life (anti-choice?) but I think this is an important distinction that many people fail to see.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/96301-late-clash-abortion-shows-conservatives-sway-7.html#post1059399556
 

The bolded part is an opinion, not a fact, based off the facts that help build your case. The notion that abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure is also an opinion, not a fact, based off the facts that help build their case. The term "pro-life" accurately depicts the views of the majority on that side based on their view of the situation. Similarly, "pro-choice" accurately describes the position of the majority on the other side based on their view of the situation. In both cases, the "opposte" term attempting to be applied to the other side....anti-choice and anti-life...are severely lacking and horribly misleading through political spin as it attempts to supplant their own sides views onto the other side and then categories their choice based on that.
 
The simple reality is that the vast majority of people who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion....they simply believe that it is a choice best left to the woman and her doctor....period.
 
The government has not determined it is murder. I consider it more a sin than murder.
 
To those that think abortion should be legal, but rare, why do you care about it being rare?

.
 

There's nothing wrong with defensive killing.
 
First, no one is pro abortion. No one thinks it's a great activity for a sunny afternoon. To imply otherwise stupid and insulting. Second, the issue is not about pro or anti life. It's about when life begins. People who are pro-choice do not think murder is OK, the don't see it as murder. I understand the controversy about when life begins. I don't understand why some insist on lying about the other side by saying they want to murder babies. At least have the decency to have a truthful debate.
 
TOJ said:
To those that think abortion should be legal, but rare, why do you care about it being rare?

.
Click to expand...

Well, they really don't want it at all. But they live in the real world and know that's not possible. It means I don't like it but I'm not going to stop you. I'm just going to ask you to be more careful. So that it doesn't become a sort of birth control.
 

Layla_Z. OK I'll rember you're a very sensible person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…