U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2009, 09:42 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,388 posts, read 5,542,188 times
Reputation: 3332

Advertisements

No, you are either pro-choice or you aren't. No matter if it's for you or someone across the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2009, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,716,018 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
No, you are either pro-choice or you aren't. No matter if it's for you or someone across the world.
I don't think it is that simple for a lot of people. There were 42 million abortions worldwide in 2003. There were 1.37 million abortions in the US in 1996.

An estimated 43% of all women will have an abortion.

Many of these women are pro-choice. Many are not. I think this is a very difficult and personal decision for women to make. Moreover, I think that someone can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Nobody has proffered an arguement other than citing there personal feelings otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,388 posts, read 5,542,188 times
Reputation: 3332
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
I don't think it is that simple for a lot of people. There were 42 million abortions worldwide in 2003. There were 1.37 million abortions in the US in 1996.

An estimated 43% of all women will have an abortion.

Many of these women are pro-choice. Many are not. I think this is a very difficult and personal decision for women to make. Moreover, I think that someone can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Nobody has proffered an arguement other than citing there personal feelings otherwise.
I disagree. Being "pro-life" (in the sense of abortion), means you are against abortion, at all times, for all reasons, for ALL persons.

Pro-choice (in the sense of abortion) means you are for ALL choices (abortion, BC, adoption, keeping the child) for all people, yourself included.

So if you are for someone other than yourself having an abortion, then you are still pro-choice in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,716,018 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
I disagree. Being "pro-life" (in the sense of abortion), means you are against abortion, at all times, for all reasons, for ALL persons.

Pro-choice (in the sense of abortion) means you are for ALL choices (abortion, BC, adoption, keeping the child) for all people, yourself included.

So if you are for someone other than yourself having an abortion, then you are still pro-choice in the end.

OK....I understand you. But I just don't think the issue is that cut and dry for most people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Michigan
717 posts, read 1,896,771 times
Reputation: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
I was talking to a group of people the other day. Several of them said that they had never had an abortion, and never would. They stated that they are dead-set against the idea of having an abortion. However, at the same time they said that they are very committed to the idea of being able to choose. They are as much pro-choice as they are pro-life.

Does this make sense to anyone?
The substantive question here is whether someone can believe that abortion is immoral yet still believe that abortion should be legal.

Unfortunately, the title of this thread frames the question in a way that has caused this discussion to get bogged down in a merely semantic question, namely, the meaning of the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Whether somebody can be labeled both pro-choice and pro-life depends on how those labels are defined. If "pro-choice" means that abortion should be legal under some circumstances, and "pro-life" means that abortion should be illegal under most circumstances, then one can be both, and many people are. If "pro-choice" means that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and "pro-life" means that abortion should be legal under no circumstances, then one cannot be both, and most people are neither. And so on for various other definitions.

Why don't we just skip the semantic question and focus on the substantive question? Arguing about labels hardly seems like a "Great Debate".

Last edited by tuebor; 05-28-2009 at 10:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,716,018 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor View Post
The substantive question here is whether someone can believe that abortion is immoral yet still believe that abortion should be legal.

Unfortunately, the title of this thread frames the question in a way that has caused this discussion to get bogged down in a merely semantic question, namely, the meaning of the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Whether somebody can be labeled both pro-choice and pro-life depends on how those labels are defined. If "pro-choice" means that abortion should be legal under some circumstances, and "pro-life" means that abortion should be illegal under most circumstances, then one can be both, and many people are. If "pro-choice" means that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and "pro-life" means that abortion should be legal under no circumstances, then one cannot be both, and most people are neither. And so on for various other definitions.

Why don't we just skip the semantic question and focus on the substantive question? Arguing about labels hardly seems like a "Great Debate".
OK....what is your sustantive contribution....other than to denigrate the title of the thread (smirk), that is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,004,420 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
I disagree. Being "pro-life" (in the sense of abortion), means you are against abortion, at all times, for all reasons, for ALL persons.

Pro-choice (in the sense of abortion) means you are for ALL choices (abortion, BC, adoption, keeping the child) for all people, yourself included.

So if you are for someone other than yourself having an abortion, then you are still pro-choice in the end.
It depends on the world view. Some of us choose not to take decisions for others, pretty much like we don't want others to decide for our own self. A pro-choice person will respect your personal opinion, a pro-lifer will not. One is intrusive, other is not.

If the world view involves one where you value personal liberties and rights, not a lock step marching, then you follow what you think is responsible for you, but refrain from being a control freak respecting others. Then you would manage being pro-choice (at societal level) while being pro-life (at personal).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,763,873 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
I don't think it is that simple for a lot of people. There were 42 million abortions worldwide in 2003. There were 1.37 million abortions in the US in 1996.

An estimated 43% of all women will have an abortion.

Many of these women are pro-choice. Many are not. I think this is a very difficult and personal decision for women to make. Moreover, I think that someone can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Nobody has proffered an arguement other than citing there personal feelings otherwise.
Pro-life = protecting the life and rights of unborn children

Pro-choice = protecting the rights of pregnant women, regardless of what the person would personally do or not do

You are correct when you say "it's not that simple for a lot of people," but using different logic. Most people are against the right to an abortion for any reason at ANY time during a pregnancy, even most "pro-choicers." Most "pro-lifers" feel that abortion should be allowed in limited circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,716,018 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Most people are against the right to an abortion for any reason at ANY time during a pregnancy, even most "pro-choicers." Most "pro-lifers" feel that abortion should be allowed in limited circumstances.
Your thesis is:
"most people" and "pro-choicers" are against the right to chose an abortion.
"Pro-liferers" feel that abortion should be allowed in limited circumstances.

I think you have this backwards.

...and given your statement that pro-lifers would allow abortions in limited circumstances, does that not make it possible for people to be both pro-choice and pro-life?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2009, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor View Post
The substantive question here is whether someone can believe that abortion is immoral yet still believe that abortion should be legal.
.
There are many things I believe are immoral that should not be illegal. Our police have better things to do than enforce laws against people cheating in a friendly game of cards, or lying to your wife about why you came home late, or phoning in sick when you need to get your hair done.

We already have a plethora of laws against things that are NOT immoral, without adding every little moral transgression. Like using one of two available handicapped parking spaces to run into the store for a minute.

(By the way, can you be fined for using a handicapped stall in a public restroom?)

Virtually every TV ad is immoral. Implicit in every ad is the untruth, that using the product or service will benefit you more than it will benefit the person to whom you pay your money, and who spends their advertising budget because they know it wil disillusion you to that effect. Deception is immoral, and our entire market system runs full-throttle on deception.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-28-2009 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top