The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: It is possible to be Pro-Choice but anti-abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 19447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




It is possible to be pro-choice but anti-abortion. You can support a woman's right to choose (what to do with her own body), but you don't have to agree with/like the choices she makes. Thus, you can support her right to CHOOSE abortion, but you don't have to support abortion.


We all know with the word 'possible' there is hardly are resolution to be made where it is fair to argue that it is 'not'. espically when it comes to beliefs. It is possible for me to believe that the sasquatch has rocket jet gluets, but there are no rational paradigm's (at least that I have heard) to believe such.

It makes a little bit of reasonable sense to say people could believe bigfoot exist, or to say people could be skeptical that he exist at all outside our imaginations, but it does not to say people could believe bigfoot is the head of the CIA, and he can cast lightning from his hands magically. whatever paradigm of thinking you are coming from, they arguably would not consistantly line up to let you think all those things true concerning the sasquatch. mabye you come from an understanding that things are explained through science and at its farthest stretch you could see aliens invading our CIA. or you could come from an understanding that believes in the mystical and could view a creature being able to cast magic from its hands. but both......

So understanding that I think the Con of this topic should be given the arguments vote if he can show Pro-choice and Pro-life to be inconsistant beliefs even if Pro still shows its 'possible'

however if those of you who vote are not satisfied with that request this debate take a focus on the spirit of whats behind starting it, giving Pro a chance to defend the consistance of his two belifes, but must be a stickler for the resolutions word 'possible' then fine. I believe my paticular line of argument will cover the resolution as is 'possibly' anyway.

I say this because while a view could be argued 'irrational' but still a 'possible' view, I do not believe the same symantics can be applied to the view being 'dishonest' and still a 'possible' view. when a lie is mixed into what establishes the view, espically when it a lie to yourself, then I would say that the view that only exist based on that self-deciption is not possible, as its grounded in that wich you secretly know to not be true. For example an man might tell you he believes in the flying spagitte monster, but we all know inluding him he is really lying to you. he does this to give him a means to mock belief in god but when he is board with that he goes back to being an athiest. There are no actual holy books, religous experince causeing speaches that provoke belief in the flying spagitte monster in people just like the Colbert Report does not actual convert anyone into being a republican. Dishonesty is at its base even the 'pastastairiens' are open about the sarcastic intention of there testimoney, so honest belief in the flying spagitte monster is impossible.

Now to apply that to the topic of this debate, pro-choice and pro-life.

Would you (Pro) ever say you believe that it should be leagle for a man to choose to come to your house and shoot you in the face at his whim? after all its his gun, he bought it he can do whatever he wants with it, fire it at whatever he wants with it. and you really ticked him off at work last friday and while you may disagree with his method of dealing with that anger could you really disagree that it is his leagle right to CHOOSE whatever method he wants to blow off steam (pun intended)?

of course you would because its not his leagle right to just do whatever he CHOOSES. no one comes to aid of the shoplifters caught at walmart to say it was there right to choose to put the things they did in there bag and try and walk out the store without paying for them. there very purpose of goverment is to limit our choices when they interfere with the rights of others. You do not have a right to go out and choose to steal from others, store owners have the right to there stuff being exchanged on the sales terms they have offered. You do not have a right choose to murder others as you please, because others have an inaliable right to there own life.

and the fact that you say you are Pro-Life shows you would agree with that, that people should not have abortions because it is wrongly taking of another life.

and that means your lying (granted to yourself, not nessisaraly to me) about being pro-choice, because you know, from the paradigm that gives you the belief in Pro-life, the same thing that makes abortion wrong is the same thing that makes my assasinating you at your house while you sleep or vise-versa or you and me going out and killing together some other person as wrong.

the double standard where murder is wrong and we have no right to choose to do it in one case but it is wrong still but it is a right to choose in another shows you are not being honest with yourself, thus the honest view is not possible.

should you feel the need to accuse me of strawman arguing this round by placing views on you that you do not have please forgive me. It is round 1 and as Con all I have availible right now is to set up with cases against the typical common arguments and views often heard (the strawmans) sense you have yet to have an opportunity to give the details to your personal views on the matter.

If I have characterized your beliefs incorrectly that would change soundness of my case, then please explain in detail the paradigm you have where you believe it is your right, my right, or anyones right to go choose to murder anyone they please with the guns they bought. Or even how it was there/our right to steal those guns rather than buy them they way there owners intended to depart with them, with our cash. How is it you take that view and honestly still take the view of a pro-lifer?

I look foward to my opponents response and leave my post off with a HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Debate Round No. 1


We're a bit all over the map here but I'll try to focus in on the main topic here. (Before I go on, I wanted to say the the man who believed in flying spaghetti monsters might not be mocking anyone or anything, he might truly believe in them. So that would make him crazy, rather than religiously intolerant. Although there's a fine line there).


Your first example of the gun owner isn't valid. Just because you support a man's right to buy a gun, doesn't mean you support his committing acts of violence and other crimes with it. I support a man's right to buy a car. I support his right to buy a drink. I don't support everything he chooses to do with the car and or alcohol. It's NOT his legal right to do whatever he chooses with the gun. There are laws. One law says he can buy the gun. Another says he CANNOT kill people with it (unless he's a police officer, soldier, etc.)

Shoplifters do not have a right to steal. No one has a right to commit a crime. I doubt anyone supports a person's right to break the law. (Remember, abortion is legal). Since I'm agreeing with you, I don't see how you're supporting your side of the debate.

I never said I was pro-life. I said being pro-life doesn not preclude you from being pro-choice. Everyone is for free speech. That doesn't mean we support all the things people SAY wth that right.

Something being "wrong," is not the same as illegal. Some people think abortion is wrong. Some do not. But there is no disputing it is legal. Someone killing another while he sleeps is wrone AND illegal. Abortion is considered murder by some, simply a medical procedure by others. The law says it's a medical procedure.

I appreciate your response but I didn't read anything that clearly made your position stronger. You did nothing to disprove that someone can support a woman's right to choose (pro-choice) but not support all the choices she makes with that right (one of those choices being abortion). Therefore, you can be pro-choice but pro-life or anti-abortion. It's the right to choose your support, not the actions which result because of the right. Not everyone makes the same choices.


Marauder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll skip ahead to the next round and let you rebut and summarize.


Marauder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
personal attacks? I did not make any of those. the closest thing I figure you could be talking about is the dishonesty part of the argument but saying someone is being dishonest with themselves is not a personal attack.
Its actually the only logical argument rount to take too when the resolution does not make arguing the inconsistency of the views strictly an option.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
Rogue wrote:
: so pro is for legalization of abortion but does not think that women should get abortions?

Right. Well, Pro may not hold that position himself, but he claims that it is a possible position.

And it is a possible position. I once talked a group of anti-choice anti-abortion people into being pro-choice anti-abortion people. They went away thinking abortion is wrong, sinful, to be avoided---but they no longer wanted to use the state as the enforcement arm of the church.

In a free country, people are free to make wrong choices. They have the right to smoke cigarettes, even though smoking is wrong. They have the right to think _I Spit on Your Grave_ is better than _Pulp Fiction_ even though that is clearly absurd. And, closer to the point, they have he right to think abortion is immoral, even though that opinion is hateful and irrational.

I want this to be a free country, so I want them to be free to hold that hateful and irrational opinion.

They shouldn't have that opinion, but it should be their choice.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
incidentally I have no problem going back and forth for a bit considering the debate got cut shorter than it was intended to be. but if you will only argue on further in another debate to try this again I would be happy to reaccapt another challenge.

the killing of millions of Jews was legal. it may not be here in America but it was in Nazi Germany at the time when it happened (the holocaust). so in reference to your case about the legality of abortion changing things its a completely legit comparison to bring up other things that were also legal and also disputed as murder.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
your response here in the comments indicates you read what I posted for round three cause I rember posting round three and I know I did not mention anything about the jews before then. However for some reason the debate is saying I forfieted round 3 for some reasons? is it that way now on your computer too?

whatever's going on this is just lame. I may have forfieted round 2 by accident but I had the final one in on time.
Posted by hdmdc 4 years ago
I'm not going to get into a back and forth here because, frankly, that's what the debates are for. Two points:

1). Abortion is legal. Killing millions of Jews is not. You cannot compare the two for many reasons, starting with that.
2). You can absolutely support an American having the same rights as other Americans while NOT supporting what they do with that right. You can support a person's right to vote but not approve of her who they vote for. You can support a person's right to freedom of religion but not approve of that religion. You can support a person's right to own a gun but not support that person using it in a crime. And there's the freed speech example I listed in the debate. One (support for a right) is not a prerequisite for the other (supporting actions taken with that right. To say otherwise is to require all of us to support NO rights for anyone because we do not want to be held responsible for other people's actions.
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
You can change the tine limit to increments ranging between 5 minutes and three days.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
what on earth? theres no way that was 3 days! since when are the time limits 24 hours?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Unless people accuse me of semantics, it is always "possible" for you to be Pro-Choice but anti-abortion... whether the views are contradictory is another matter.
Posted by rogue 4 years ago
so pro is for legalization of abortion but does not think that women should get abortions?
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Medic, I would say that is not true. I consider this to be my position. Supporting a women's right to choose does not mean you indorse abortion, but rather that you recognize being anti-abortion is your personal belief and that you have no right to enforce that belief onto others.

hdmdc, this is not really a debatable topic unless you define "anti-abortion". Anything is possible unless it is contradictory. You can not say that the position is contradictory without defining it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro staked out a position without much defending it, but it was a very strong position because of the world "possible" in the resolution. Con did a great job of attacking that word "possible," and then switched from logic to unwarranted personal attack and forfeit. Pro answered by supporting some of Con's arguments, and reversing his or her own position. A very strange debate. I'll vote for Pro because Con forfeited.