Choice

have you never seen a woman or a man? I am sure you have. Have another look and see the observable differemces in anatomy one can see even when they are fully dressed
Have you never seen someone you can't tell the anatomy of just by looking at them fully clothed? I am sure you have.
 
Have you never seen someone you can't tell the anatomy of just by looking at them fully clothed? I am sure you have.
Yes, but have you ever seen anyone normally clothed you could identify as a man rather than a woman if you knew which was which?

Have you ever seen a man dressed in woman's clothing. Have you ever heard of a wolf in sheep's clothing?
 
I can I was asking you, do you now think you identify as me?
Why do you have so much trouble following a conversation? You can't support your claim, which is no surprise to anybody.
Would you like a picture of a man and a woman so you cant see the difference?
I already know the difference.
Would you like picture of a bus and a giraffe so we can see whether we agree on what they are?
Nope.
 
Yes, but have you ever seen anyone normally clothed you could identify as a man rather than a woman if you knew which was which?

Have you ever seen a man dressed in woman's clothing. Have you ever heard of a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Are you going to continue asking questions, or do you have an actual point to make?
 
There's no such thing as a "fetal woman".

Nobody is "pro-abortion".
Incorrect on both accounts.

In today's political climate I can call anyone I like a woman, even the female fetus, and everyone claiming abortion is a Constitutional right is pro-abortion. For them it is a right. According to June's Pew poll, 61% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. If we separated the "all" from the "most" and found that only 10%, or only 1%, were in favor of the "all" that would be evidence someone is pro-abortion. More accurately, nearly everyone is pro-abortion - including me - but we place the dividing line pertaining to when and/or under what conditions the procedure occurs in different places. Some hold it is acceptable - they are pro-abortion - only in cases when either the fetal life or the maternal life is in physical mortal danger. Others - they too are pro-abortion - use the point of survival outside the womb as the dividing point of moral and/or legal permissibility. Some, according to Pew, are pro-abortion all the time and have no line of separation at all.
 
Incorrect on both accounts.

In today's political climate I can call anyone I like a woman, even the female fetus, and everyone claiming abortion is a Constitutional right is pro-abortion. For them it is a right. According to June's Pew poll, 61% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. If we separated the "all" from the "most" and found that only 10%, or only 1%, were in favor of the "all" that would be evidence someone is pro-abortion. More accurately, nearly everyone is pro-abortion - including me - but we place the dividing line pertaining to when and/or under what conditions the procedure occurs in different places. Some hold it is acceptable - they are pro-abortion - only in cases when either the fetal life or the maternal life is in physical mortal danger. Others - they too are pro-abortion - use the point of survival outside the womb as the dividing point of moral and/or legal permissibility. Some, according to Pew, are pro-abortion all the time and have no line of separation at all.
Do you acknowledge the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?

Because pro-abortion suggests that somebody is actively encouraging women to have abortions, and sees them as a moral plus.
 
Do you acknowledge the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?
Depends.

Politically there may be a difference. Logically there is none because a "pro-choice" view is "pro-abortion," as a possible, legitimate, and veracious choice, and pro-abortion in any and all occasion when a person so chooses. The supposed caveat, "I personally don't believe abortion should occur," does not change the necessary outcome of the position. That outcome is a human life killing abortion that is supported and approved de facto as a consequence of choice.
Because pro-abortion suggests that somebody is actively encouraging women to have abortions, and sees them as a moral plus.
No, it does not. That might be your interpretation but that is not objective.

Furthermore, there are in fact people who do actively encourage women to have abortions. Millions of dollars are spent overseas in other countries under the guise of "reproductive health" where women are intentionally, willfully, unabashedly "encouraged" to abort.

And for many morality has nothing to do with it.
 
Depends.

Politically there may be a difference. Logically there is none because a "pro-choice" view is "pro-abortion," as a possible, legitimate, and veracious choice, and pro-abortion in any and all occasion when a person so chooses. The supposed caveat, "I personally don't believe abortion should occur," does not change the necessary outcome of the position.
Then you make no distinction between approving of a behaviour, and being in favour of the right to that behaviour?

I don't approve of smoking or alcohol, but I wouldn't want to see others' right to do so taken away.
Furthermore, there are in fact people who do actively encourage women to have abortions.
And such people would be pro-abortion.

I am not; I do not consider abortion itself to be a question of morality.
 
"My Body My Choice"
Is this a right for all women?
Of course!! all MEN also!!!

We" ALWAYS been able to do exactly what we choose (and are able) to do, for as long as we're able to do it. that's a God given right.

The "Able to" aspect, of course is situational, as controlled by legal limitations (maybe against the LAW), and physical considerations (we'd like to fly, but need "Expensive Appliances" to make that possible. Any number of external constraints can eliminate the possibility of "Doing what we choose to do".

I "Choose" to own a 1931 model SJ Deusenburg Roadster, but my overall circumstances only make a 1931 Ford Sedan possible.

ANd ultimately, what we do will be JUDGED, by the one eternal judge, and we will settle up then.
 
Then you make no distinction....
Please don't tell me what I do or do not do. I am quite capable of articulating my own views.
Then you make no distinction between approving of a behaviour, and being in favour of the right to that behaviour?
There is no right to abortion. Many people make that claim but it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and the Supreme Court does not legislate laws.
I don't approve of smoking or alcohol, but I wouldn't want to see others' right to do so taken away.
False equivalence, appeal to personal anecdote, and red herring.
And such people would be pro-abortion.
Yep.

ANy affirmation of people being pro-abortion contradicts the prior claim no one is pro-abortion.
I am not; I do not consider abortion itself to be a question of morality.
Irrelevant. You were the one bringing up the matter of "moral plus" in others.






So look at the means by which you arrive at your position because now there is evidence it is based on several errors in reasoning. One would be sufficient to question or discard the position and you have several.

Remember: this current exchange is not about the whole of the abortion debate. It is about one single statement another made and I disputed; the claim no one is pro-abortion. That statement is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Please don't tell me what I do or do not do. I am quite capable of articulating my own views.
I didn't tell you - you mined that part of my question, and then quoted the question.
There is no right to abortion. Many people make that claim but it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and the Supreme Court does not legislate laws.
I'll rephrase: do you draw a distinction between disapproving of a behaviour, and wanting said behaviour to be outlawed?
False equivalence, appeal to personal anecdote, and red herring.
I gave an example of approving of a right to do a thing, but the doing of the thing.
So you've just contradicted yourself: you originally said no one is pro-abortion
Did I?
Where?

Quote, please.

What I actually said was what the "pro-abortion" position would be.
I never said that nobody held it.
Remember: this current exchange is not about the whole of the abortion debate. It is about one single statement another made and I disputed; the claim no one is pro-abortion.
Ain't my claim, so I don't know why you're telling me...
 
Did I?
Where?

Quote, please.
I have corrected those statements in my previous post. I mistakenly confused you with the poster making the original claim. I thought I'd corrected those statements when I caught my mistake but see I didn't catch them all. Appreciate you bringing the error to my attention.


The point is a claim was made that isn't true and based upon your quoting my response to that statement, and your specific (incorrect) claim I make no distinction the existence of pro-abortion people remains the point of discussion. I just corrected my mis-statements. I do not read you doing the same. Show me the courtesy of amending your prior statement I make no distinction when the posts clearly evidence piles of distinctions are being made.
What I actually said was what the "pro-abortion" position would be.
And that is disingenuous because we all know there are people who meet the criteria provided and I provided evidence to that effect.
I never said that nobody held it.
Yep, and I have amended my post accordingly. The salient point is since there are people who do hold it the prior statement claiming no one is pro-abortion is incorrect and so too is your statement I make no distinctions.
 
Back
Top