Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion terms

Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:06:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

I had the same thoughts a while ago when I read about Benatars pro-death view.
Some people might take issue with "supporting abortion" as it might make it sound like one is encouraging people to abort their "being in utero", while in reality they only support a woman's right to choose.
But yes, I agree, these terms are more propaganda than anything else.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:05:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

A great topic host! I have qualms about the above remark though. If this was true, why does it seem that the pro-choice crowd campaigns against restrictions to abortion, in some states, that include requiring a 24 hr wait period or that the mother to see an ultrasound of the fetus? Wouldn't these restrictions augment the mothers ability to make the best choice for her?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:23:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

I would disagree, I believe both pro-lifers and pro-choicers use terms for the unborn that create or remove emotion. The term "clump of cells" is no more scientific then the term "baby". Proembryo, blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus are the scientific terms. I believe " developing human" is the best scientific term that would transcend all stages of development.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another interesting phenomenon occurs when people determine if you are in the pro-choice or pro-life crowd. Poll providers will develop poll questions that purposefully decieve the true number of pro-lifers and pro-choicers. They take advantage of the large number of people that do not fit cleanly in either group. For instance, if they ask the question of the support for partial birth abortions or abortions at any time during pregnancy they would innacuratly inflate the number of pro-lifers since that is an unpopular position even with pro-choicers. On the contrary, if they posed the question for support of a total ban on abortion, including in cases of rape, insest or when the mother's life is at risk they would innaccuratly inflate the number of pro-lifers since that is an unpopular position even for pro-lifers.
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
While neutral terms like "unborn" and "fetus" may be ideal, I still don't think it can be implemented. You can't stop someone from saying "baby" when advocating for unborn rights, and the other side is going to retaliate with "clump of cells" to dissipate the connection between fetus and child. I am pro-choice but sometimes I will use the term "baby," as I assume people will know what I mean.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:57:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

The problems with the pro-choice term are far greater than that with pro-life. From a scientific perspective, an abortion is an ending of a life. Of course, you could argue someone who is pro-life is inconsistent if they support killing animals or aren't pacifists, but those are generally accepted realities. Pro-choice, on the other hand, implies a skepticism towards government involvement in personal affairs. However, the majority of pro-choice people are liberals - a group typically associated with the nanny state.

I think a fair term is indeed pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Being pro-marijuana doesn't mean you like smoking pot, it means you support it being legal. In the same sense, being pro-abortion means you want it to generally be legal, and being anti-abortion means you want it to generally be illegal.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:08:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

I think this kind of misses the point slightly. When people say there should be less abortions, they typically refer to the moral status of abortion, rather than the personal discomfort of the mother. That seems incredibly puzzling. Indeed, even in a possible world where abortions where pleasurable somehow, it seems at least some pro-choicers would still want to reduce abortion rates. ???

As for the personal impact, surely, if you're "extremely pro-choice" though, adverse reactions to abortions are irrational, if not downright silly. Abortion, if one is heavily pro-choice, are often likened to "lump of cells" at best, parasites at worst. It seems strange that card-carrying pro-choicers should be deeply affected in the way you describe. If many of them believed their own rhetoric, abortion would have the same moral content as removing a tapeworm or a cancerous mole.


As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
While neutral terms like "unborn" and "fetus" may be ideal, I still don't think it can be implemented. You can't stop someone from saying "baby" when advocating for unborn rights, and the other side is going to retaliate with "clump of cells" to dissipate the connection between fetus and child. I am pro-choice but sometimes I will use the term "baby," as I assume people will know what I mean.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:34:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

People who are pro-choice can be anti-abortion.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
FullMetal.Alchemist
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:49:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

"Fetus" is the most accurate term. People who call it a "baby" or "child" usually are doing so in an attempt at appealing to emotion.


When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

I think we should. They're ultimately just politicized terms used by their respective proponents in order to make the opposing side sound bad (i.e. being "anti-life" or "anti-choice"). The "pro-choice" label is especially irritating because it implies that I buy into the bodily autonomy argument for abortion (I don't... at all).
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:19:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:08:35 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

I think this kind of misses the point slightly. When people say there should be less abortions, they typically refer to the moral status of abortion, rather than the personal discomfort of the mother. That seems incredibly puzzling. Indeed, even in a possible world where abortions where pleasurable somehow, it seems at least some pro-choicers would still want to reduce abortion rates. ???

As for the personal impact, surely, if you're "extremely pro-choice" though, adverse reactions to abortions are irrational, if not downright silly. Abortion, if one is heavily pro-choice, are often likened to "lump of cells" at best, parasites at worst. It seems strange that card-carrying pro-choicers should be deeply affected in the way you describe. If many of them believed their own rhetoric, abortion would have the same moral content as removing a tapeworm or a cancerous mole.
I think one of the above posters explained it better when they said that pro-choicers are not pro-abortion because we aren't saying abortion is always the best option, but rather that whatever the mother chooses is the best option. I stand by my position of being extremely pro-choice, as there are very few situations in which I would be against abortion. This does not mean I would get an abortion if I had an unwanted pregnancy. Nor does it mean I would have no emotions towards the fetus. However, I always want the choice, and I want every woman to have the choice. One doesn't need to be indifferent towards their fetus to want an abortion, and I fully respect any person's emotions about their unborn child, be they major or nonexistent. It is perfectly okay to mourn the loss of your pregnancy, even if it was your choice to end it. If you view the fetus as a "clump of cells," that's okay too. I only start to think these emotions "silly" when people impose their own beliefs on others.

Saying many pro-choicers want less abortions was not the best way to explain it, I apologize. I don't want there to be less abortions, just less unwanted pregnancies, which would have the effect of less abortions. I want this because having an unwanted pregnancy can put one in a very painful position. Choosing to get an abortion is often a very hard decision and it's okay to be a little scared or sad about it without necessarily regretting the choice.
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:28:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

In general, I agree, but I believe that there are ways in which people actually do encourage or even demand abortion: fetuses determined to have a probability of having certain developmental disabilities. In certain states, if there's reason to suspect something like Down syndrome, the mother actually has to sign a paper saying why she doesn't want amniocentesis done. And if it is, and shows a probability, most doctors will encourage abortion.

I believe in abortion as a legal right, but I have mixed feelings when it comes to considerations such as this. It's too much like eugenics in my way of thinking.
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 6:12:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:28:53 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

In general, I agree, but I believe that there are ways in which people actually do encourage or even demand abortion: fetuses determined to have a probability of having certain developmental disabilities. In certain states, if there's reason to suspect something like Down syndrome, the mother actually has to sign a paper saying why she doesn't want amniocentesis done. And if it is, and shows a probability, most doctors will encourage abortion.

I believe in abortion as a legal right, but I have mixed feelings when it comes to considerations such as this. It's too much like eugenics in my way of thinking.

This a good point; there are some situations, usually involving birth defects, in which some people would say abortion is the best option, regardless of the parents' wishes. So I suppose one could be "pro-abortion" in this case. However, not all pro-choicers would take this stance (as you've exemplified, you believe in abortion as a legal right but wouldn't press for someone to get an abortion based on a defect) therefore, "pro-abortion" does not accurately describe "pro-choice" because you can be one and not the other.
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:13:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 6:12:08 AM, HelloPlants wrote:

This a good point; there are some situations, usually involving birth defects, in which some people would say abortion is the best option, regardless of the parents' wishes. So I suppose one could be "pro-abortion" in this case. However, not all pro-choicers would take this stance (as you've exemplified, you believe in abortion as a legal right but wouldn't press for someone to get an abortion based on a defect) therefore, "pro-abortion" does not accurately describe "pro-choice" because you can be one and not the other.

Yes...I agree with the OP that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both terms meant to cast the debate in emotional, binary terms. Because of the actual complexity of positions, I'm not sure there are any two terms one could simply substitute to make things neutral. On the other hand, I guess it seems to me like the terms we use, as loaded as they are, are convenient, and anyone who can't move beyond their superficial meanings probably isn't going to engage in meaningful dialogue anyway.
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
Death23
Posts: 784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 10:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It would more socratic to, when arguing the subject, avoid the use of terms that carry connotations which can be distracting. Most of the time the scientific terms don't carry any connotations, but sometimes they do. Fetus, zygote, and other like terms might be interpreted as dehumanizing. Using esoteric terms like conceptus, proembryo, or blastocyst avoids the connotation problem but creates a new problem - People don't know what they mean. I've found that embryo is a good term because it doesn't carry any connotation and is understood by the public at large. However, it's inaccurate to characterize a fetus as an embryo in the later stages of pregnancy.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:35:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

I will use human organism, or child as they are both scientifically accurate terms. I also generally use the she pronoun.

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

The term pro-life is used because it extends past abortion into a comprehensive ethical framework.

I know most pro-choice people are not going to accept a pro-abortion label. I will say that from a pro-life stance that it does make sense. It is like saying, that you're against slavery, but you don't see a problem with someone else owning a slave - or more appropriately I wouldn't personally gas Jews, but if someone else wants to, who am I to say otherwise. It is a free world.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:40:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why? Why would a pro-choice person want less abortions? If the unborn is of no more consequence than a haircut then they shouldn't care one whit. If it is more then they should be abhorred.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:49:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
While neutral terms like "unborn" and "fetus" may be ideal, I still don't think it can be implemented. You can't stop someone from saying "baby" when advocating for unborn rights, and the other side is going to retaliate with "clump of cells" to dissipate the connection between fetus and child. I am pro-choice but sometimes I will use the term "baby," as I assume people will know what I mean.

Ironically Planned Parenthood knows that they are killing babies during an abortion. They have clearly admitted to doing so:

http://www.freerepublic.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:51:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:34:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

People who are pro-choice can be anti-abortion.

That is like being anti-slavery, but in favour of a legal slave trade.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:30:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:51:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:34:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

People who are pro-choice can be anti-abortion.

That is like being anti-slavery, but in favour of a legal slave trade.

How so?
When making an equivocation one must demonstrate it as a valid equivocation.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:59:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:35:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

I will use human organism, or child as they are both scientifically accurate terms. I also generally use the she pronoun.

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

The term pro-life is used because it extends past abortion into a comprehensive ethical framework.

I know most pro-choice people are not going to accept a pro-abortion label. I will say that from a pro-life stance that it does make sense. It is like saying, that you're against slavery, but you don't see a problem with someone else owning a slave - or more appropriately I wouldn't personally gas Jews, but if someone else wants to, who am I to say otherwise. It is a free world.

You're trying to use analogies (slavery, the Holocaust) in order to appeal to emotion.

These things aren't the same at all. I can be for gay marriage, without being gay, or wanting to get married. I can be for gun rights, without wanting to own a gun. Etc.
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:44:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:59:18 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:35:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

I will use human organism, or child as they are both scientifically accurate terms. I also generally use the she pronoun.

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

The term pro-life is used because it extends past abortion into a comprehensive ethical framework.

I know most pro-choice people are not going to accept a pro-abortion label. I will say that from a pro-life stance that it does make sense. It is like saying, that you're against slavery, but you don't see a problem with someone else owning a slave - or more appropriately I wouldn't personally gas Jews, but if someone else wants to, who am I to say otherwise. It is a free world.

You're trying to use analogies (slavery, the Holocaust) in order to appeal to emotion.

The sad reality is that abortion is precisely slavery and the Holocaust.

A slave is someone who has their rights owned by another person. Likewise we are saying that the mother owns the human rights of the child because she can order the death of her own child with no legal repercussions. That is a true slave/master relationship right there.

As for the holocaust. From your profile you're 35. That means you were born after Roe v. Wade. That also means that from your age onward, between 20-25% of the population your age or younger has been murdered with full consent of the law.

The US has lost 1.3 million soldiers in all of the wars it has ever participated in. The US is currently killing over 1 million of its future citizens every year. It has killed over 57 million since R.v.W. 57 >> than the 13 million or so that were killed in the holocaust.

http://www.statisticbrain.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

These things aren't the same at all. I can be for gay marriage, without being gay, or wanting to get married. I can be for gun rights, without wanting to own a gun. Etc.

Neither of those involve a direct action on a third party and are thus invalid analogies.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:50:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 12:30:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:51:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:34:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

People who are pro-choice can be anti-abortion.

That is like being anti-slavery, but in favour of a legal slave trade.

How so?
When making an equivocation one must demonstrate it as a valid equivocation.

Sure. The unborn child is a unique human organism. We live in a system where everyone is supposedly equal before the law with inherent inalienable rights merely by virtue of being of the human race.

We have classified a certain segment as effectively being owned by others as we have granted them the right to have unilateral determination of life and death of said first segment of the population. Thus one group of humans effectively own another group of humans as they own the fundamental right to life and death over that other human. Ownership of another human is by definition slavery.

Thus comparing abortion to slavery is not only a valid equivocation, but a factual one as well.
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 7:56:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:49:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
While neutral terms like "unborn" and "fetus" may be ideal, I still don't think it can be implemented. You can't stop someone from saying "baby" when advocating for unborn rights, and the other side is going to retaliate with "clump of cells" to dissipate the connection between fetus and child. I am pro-choice but sometimes I will use the term "baby," as I assume people will know what I mean.

Ironically Planned Parenthood knows that they are killing babies during an abortion. They have clearly admitted to doing so:

http://www.freerepublic.com...

An outdated advertisement from over 50 years ago does not reflect the current beliefs and scientific evidence surrounding abortion. No one is denying that the fetus is "killed." It is literally terminated. This advertisement is also insinuating that getting an abortion will probably make you sterile or kill you. While these effects are possible, they are very unlikely, especially today.
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 8:10:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:44:09 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:59:18 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:35:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

I will use human organism, or child as they are both scientifically accurate terms. I also generally use the she pronoun.

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

Should we get rid of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms?

The term pro-life is used because it extends past abortion into a comprehensive ethical framework.

I know most pro-choice people are not going to accept a pro-abortion label. I will say that from a pro-life stance that it does make sense. It is like saying, that you're against slavery, but you don't see a problem with someone else owning a slave - or more appropriately I wouldn't personally gas Jews, but if someone else wants to, who am I to say otherwise. It is a free world.

You're trying to use analogies (slavery, the Holocaust) in order to appeal to emotion.

The sad reality is that abortion is precisely slavery and the Holocaust.

A slave is someone who has their rights owned by another person. Likewise we are saying that the mother owns the human rights of the child because she can order the death of her own child with no legal repercussions. That is a true slave/master relationship right there.

As for the holocaust. From your profile you're 35. That means you were born after Roe v. Wade. That also means that from your age onward, between 20-25% of the population your age or younger has been murdered with full consent of the law.

The US has lost 1.3 million soldiers in all of the wars it has ever participated in. The US is currently killing over 1 million of its future citizens every year. It has killed over 57 million since R.v.W. 57 >> than the 13 million or so that were killed in the holocaust.

http://www.statisticbrain.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Comparing the suffering of slaves and holocaust victims to abortion is incredibly insensitive and an absolute disregard for the fact that aborted fetuses do not suffer. Would you say that someone in a vegetative state is a slave to their family? Is the family wrong for making decisions for this person? Honestly, I don't care how many "people" were "killed" due to abortion. It could be one million or one trillion. You will say that I am heartless, that I have no empathy, this current generation has no regard for human life. But it is just the opposite; I want what is best for the mother, and I will not let a nonsensical claim that because it has human DNA and because it may, one day, be an individual organism, that it has a "right to life" which trumps the real hardships and emotions of the people who have to live with these decisions. My heart aches for every woman and child negatively affected by pro-life's lack of empathy,
HelloPlants
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 8:32:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:50:59 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:30:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:51:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:34:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/26/2015 10:10:46 PM, Dookieman wrote:
I've noticed that when the issue of abortion is discussed pro-lifers will usually refer to the human fetus as a child or baby. Whereas pro-choicers will usually to refer to it as a fetus, a parasite or "clump of cells." I usually just call the individual in the pregnant woman's body as the human fetus or a human organism, since they are scientific and accurate terms.

When talking about abortion what should we refer to the being that's in utero?

Also, consider the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." People who are pro-life make it seem like those who are for abortion are anti-life. Whereas those who are pro-choice make it seem like those who are against abortion are anti-choice. I think "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are more accurate terms and actually better explain the stance that people have on this issue.

People who are pro-choice can be anti-abortion.

That is like being anti-slavery, but in favour of a legal slave trade.

How so?
When making an equivocation one must demonstrate it as a valid equivocation.

Sure. The unborn child is a unique human organism. We live in a system where everyone is supposedly equal before the law with inherent inalienable rights merely by virtue of being of the human race.

We have classified a certain segment as effectively being owned by others as we have granted them the right to have unilateral determination of life and death of said first segment of the population. Thus one group of humans effectively own another group of humans as they own the fundamental right to life and death over that other human. Ownership of another human is by definition slavery.

Thus comparing abortion to slavery is not only a valid equivocation, but a factual one as well.

What system is this where everyone has the same rights? I can think of every possible "right" being revoked in one way or another. Let's take, for example, children. While they have some rights, parents make most of the decisions for them; a child does not have the right to, say, wear whatever clothes they want, and a parent can decide that the outfit is inappropriate and they must change. These parental rights are especially important the younger the child is, as a young child cannot be trusted with making important life decisions. When it comes to medical decisions, parents take on the responsibility of making whatever choice is best for the kids. I would consider someone deciding to get an abortion similar to a parent making a difficult medical decision for their family.

Other examples of people who don't have equal "rights" to the general public: prisoners, the mentally impaired, people on probation, vegetables, ect. Are all of these people slaves? You could make the argument that they are "slaves to the justice system" or a "slave to their own body," but if we are considering the least corrupt scenario, where prisoners and parolees are monitored for good reason, and the disabled cannot make choices for themselves, this isn't slavery. Abortion is making a decision for both mother and fetus because the fetus is not able to weigh in on the choice. It turns out okay though, because the fetus does not care. Like, at all. It will not feel fear or pain before, during, or after the procedure. It is not capable of thought. Not sure why this is a problem still.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 4:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 7:56:00 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:49:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:44:22 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 6:45:46 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/27/2015 2:10:47 AM, HelloPlants wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:11:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

There is a huge problem with what you said...Pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion" in general. Pro-choicers don't care either way whether you get an abortion or not (there for they are not "pro" in either direction), they are only for the right to be able to make the choice freely. Therefore, labeling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" would be a mistake. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-whatever you choose; even if that means not getting an abortion.

In summary, pro-choice is the correct term. If you choose to keep the baby, the pro-choicer would be "pro-life" in that situation. If you choose to abort it, the pro-choicer would be "pro-abortion" in that situation. Therefore, you can't label the pro-choicer as "pro-abortion" in general because if a mother wanted to keep the baby, they would be "pro-life".

I wanted to agree with the above statement; no one is really pro-abortion, in fact many pro-choicers would like there to be less abortions through means of birth control and sexual education.

Why though? Surely, there is some tension in believing

A) Abortion is morally permissible

B) We should try to reduce the number of abortions

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why should we be concerned with trying to prevent them from happening?
Personally, I am extremely pro-choice. However, I also acknowledge the emotional and physical toll that abortion can take on a person. Some women suffer long-term effects from the whole process. Other women do not experience any long-term effects. Many women are deeply affected by their abortion, but still agree that it was the best choice for them. The point is that abortion is rarely a pleasant experience, even if it is the best option for you it can still be very difficult. Ideally there would be less need for abortions simply as a result of less unwanted pregnancies.

As far as what to call the developing fetus, I don't think both sides can reach a consensus on that, as a large part of the abortion debate is defining what exactly a fetus is. Some people view a fetus as a baby, others do not. Pro-lifers seem to use the term "baby" to create an emotional attachment to their argument, whereas pro-choicers would use scientific terms and "clump of cells" to reinforce their argument that baby is not equal to fetus.

The term "unborn" seems pretty value-neutral and it's used in the literature. Whether it constitutes an entity which has the right to life is obviously where the debate lies.
While neutral terms like "unborn" and "fetus" may be ideal, I still don't think it can be implemented. You can't stop someone from saying "baby" when advocating for unborn rights, and the other side is going to retaliate with "clump of cells" to dissipate the connection between fetus and child. I am pro-choice but sometimes I will use the term "baby," as I assume people will know what I mean.

Ironically Planned Parenthood knows that they are killing babies during an abortion. They have clearly admitted to doing so:

http://www.freerepublic.com...

An outdated advertisement from over 50 years ago does not reflect the current beliefs and scientific evidence surrounding abortion.

So there has been some scientific discovery in the past 50 years to show otherwise? Ebryology? 4D Ultrasounds?

No one is denying that the fetus is "killed." It is literally terminated.

And yet I don't see Planned Parenthood out there advertizing, "We kill your baby for you."

This advertisement is also insinuating that getting an abortion will probably make you sterile or kill you. While these effects are possible, they are very unlikely, especially today.

Basically the same odds now as then. Most abortions were done by medical doctors then too.

The real problem is that it shows that Planned Parenthood will say or do whatever it takes to make money. When introducing contraception, oh no this isn't abortion. That kills a baby. Now it is the termination of reproductive matter because they can make even more money once the contraception fails.