Need Pro-choice arguements for debate tomorrow.

[Dark]

Topic. Please help.

[Direckshun]

1. Don't look for it here...

It would be better to punch it into a search engine.

[Tina H]

3. Suggestion

If this thread bothers you, then use hide thread, rather than trying to shut people up.

[Direckshun]

5. Woo! Alrighty then!

I wasn't meaning to tell the guy to shut up as much as I was informing him on more efficient ways to research that POV.

Is there anyway you could hide my posts, Tina? ;)

[Tina H]

11. no

I am glad to hear that you aren't trying to shut this thread down.

The poster is going into a debate. Discussing arguments in an interactive environment is probably one of the most important components of preparing for a debate because debates are interactive. For this reason, this thread is an excellent supplement to the internet research you have helpfully suggested.

[Direckshun]

13. Well...sure.

And I'm sorry that you can't hide my posts.

Perhaps after a while DU will be gracious enough to grant you that option. ;)

[Tina H]

15. DU has granted me that option.

I choose not to excercise it.

[Direckshun]

18. I admire your testicular fortitude.

Metaphorically speaking.

Just noticed the sleeping man icon, by the way.

[Tina H]

19. This post does not make sense to me.

What are you trying to do? Are you still trying to get me to put you on ignore?

[Direckshun]

23. Nah.

I don't have any alterior motives that you need to be worried about. Hopefully over the course of my stay at DU I won't have anybody put me on ignore.

I was just being sarcastic. That's all.

[Tina H]

27. thanks

I was a bit worried there, but now I feel better. I like to be direct in stating my opinions, but I don't want to have sour relations with other DU'ers, especially ones with post counts so close to mine. Peace.

[NMDemDist2]

16. there is an option next to everyone's name

that is an "ignore" key--- looks like a sleeping man i believe.

[Tina H]

2. Fetuses don't develop brains 'til relatively late in pregnancy. n/t

[Gloria]

4. I never hear this used by pro-choice spokespeople...

It's based on religious freedom. If some Jews belief life begins at birth, for example, how does the gov. have the right to restrict abortion rights if they infringed on religious beliefs???

I mean, we always hear the "Christian" anti-abortion view...but there are religious beliefs that don't hold these views...so isn't freedom of religion infringed upon if abortion is made illegal??

Non-orthodox Jews, Unitarians, Bhuddhists for all I know......why should the "born-again Christian" view trump all othersss////

[Tina H]

14. some cultures believe infanticide is appropriate

If one of those people happened to move to the US, then do our laws violate their religious freedom?

I appreciate your sentiment, but I don't think your creative argument is the way to go.

[Red_Viking]

6. There are so many ways the debate could go...

Not sure where to start.

A couple of my faves, though. Refuse to call the anti-choice people "pro-life." If someone claims to be "pro-life," ask if they support war or the death penalty. They are anti-choice, or against a woman's right to choose. End of story.

The whole argument centers around the radical notion that women are PEOPLE with the intelligence and the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. Anti-choice folks want to legislate medical procedures, for Pete's sake. Maybe we should decide who can have tumors removed too? They're a living mass of cells, after all.

No one is FORCING another person to have an abortion. The anti-choice folks seem to promote the idea that women are too damned stupid to make up their own minds.

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

You could also ask how many kids they've adopted. Or if they support Head Start or other early childhood programs designed for disadvantaged youngsters.

Another thing about the anti-choice crowd is they love the fetus and hate the child. Yeah, I stole that from Randi Rhodes. She rocks. :loveya:

Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

RV

[JPJones]

7. It's a privacy issue.

Different religions believe different things about when human life begins. Thomas Aquinas, the renowned Catholic theologian, agreed with Aristotle that the soul entered the fetus at 40 days post-conception for males and 90 days for the female. The point being, that the moment of 'ensoulment' is debatable. Rather than oppose one group's view of ensoulment on everyone, the Supreme Court decided to leave the decision to woman.

http://kolbe.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm

If you are against abortion, perhaps you should convince people of your position on ensoulment, rather than trying to change the law.

[trotsky]

8. Most powerful stat:

A woman is anywhere from 10 to 13 times MORE LIKELY to die from complications resulting from carrying a fetus to term than she is to die from complications from abortion.

The precise stat should be somewhere on NARAL or another pro-choice site.

[wyldwolf]

9. Here ya' go!

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-abortion.htm

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-bibleforbids.htm

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-personhood.htm

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-abortiontrauma.htm

[Dark]

28. Those were especially helpful. Thanks alot!

[Dark]

10. Thanks everyone!

I appreciate it! The more the merrier, though. Please, keep them coming!

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. The main problem xtians have with abortion is that it isn't done Biblically

ie; with a sword as in Hosea 13:16, 2nd Kings 15:16 among others and lets not forget that a womans body isn't really hers to do with as she pleases as stated in 1st Corinthians, 7:4

It isn't really about "Choice" it is about forcing a woman to be submissive to men, living with her "mistakes" and living with the consequences of her having had sex with a man.

I have long contended that if men got pregnant, not only would abortion be legal in all instances, it would be mandatory in some and the waiting rooms of abortion clinics would be cocktail lounges.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Making abortion illegal only jeopardizes the lives of women.

Women will always find a way to obtain an abortion. The fetus will not survive whether or not the abortion is legal. But a woman will risk dying from the butchery of a non-medical hack who will use unsterilized surgical (if she's lucky) equipment and table. Heck, the "doctor" may not even wash his/her hands! So therefore, if the goal is to "save babies", the means to do by criminalizing abortion won't produce the results as stated. But women will not stand by and be made into brood mares. They will seek abortion under any circumstances. It's women's lives at issue, not those of the fetus.

[LynzM]

25. I second that point

It's like alcohol- prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol, it just made it go underground. Women will always have abortions, but the nature of them is dependant somewhat on whether they are legally obtained from certified doctors, or done by a 'hack'. Teaching birth control methods early and making them easily accessible will do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which will lead to fewer abortions. Forcing a woman to carry a child to term that she doesn't want because she is afraid to have an abortion will lead to more children who are unwanted and poorly cared-for.

[Tina H]

33. The counter argument you will get in debate is . . .

all crimes are illegal and therefore forced underground. This is true of recreational heroin use, kidnapping and even murder.

Prochoicers should be prepared to respond to this counterargument in a debate. I am not sure what the most effective response would be, though.

[Tina H]

32. This argument seems like it would work better . . .

in a discussion on DU with participants sympathetic to prochoice ideals.

In an argument with the other side and undecided observers, this argument seems like it would be bad rhetoric. If anti-choicers say that they care about fetuses they may very well care about fetuses. Accusing them of ulterior motives and bad faith seems shrill and presumptive.

Sure, a lot of anti-choicers (probably not all of them) do have ulterior motives and argue in bad faith when they profess concern for fetuses. I just think a debate is the wrong place to accuse them of lying about their motivations.

Probably better to admit that you have some level of respect for fetuses, but that this respect is outweighed by the harm that unwanted pregnancies and births cause. This is a kinder and gentler way of getting the point across.

[usrbs]

20. You could refer to what goes on when abortion is outlawed -

The good old days when the rich flew down to Mexico to have a discreet "procedure", and the poor went to back alley practitioners or used neat do-it-yourselfers such as coat hangers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortion.htm

You could also ask the other side if they oppose contraceptives - many of them do, and then it's clear that they are not really anti -abortion, they are actually anti-sex.

[bvar22]

21. Avoid arguing the morality of abortion.

Instead, frame the debate around the argument that the GOVERNMENT should NOT be involved a decision best left to the woman, her family and supporters, her spiritual advisors, and her doctor.

Historical context is available. Abortion used to be illegal. Morality was not the argument used to legalize abortion. Abortion was legalized to stop the back alley BUTCHERY of young women. Women with rich parents still had access to clinical abortions through their family doctors, or they flew out of the country for a few weeks to have the matter taken care of. If the US returns to the times of the abortion prohibition, the coat hanger butchers will be back in business.

In this context, it is very possible to be Anti-Abortion, but Pro-Choice.
I am.

[noiretextatique]

29. i like this argument...and i would add: freedom from religion

why should the dominant religions' doctrines dictate everyone's options on this issue? i'm not a christian...why should my choices be limited because of someone else's religious beliefs?

[prodigal_green]

22. Because it is a woman's body

and nobody has a right to tell anybody what they can do with their own body.

Don't argue on their terms. Giving them the right to define the debate means you lose.

Over 30% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort (most women don't even know it because it happens so early in the pregnancy). The fact that a woman's conscious brain makes the decision instead of some chemical reaction doesn't change the fact that if a woman is not prepared for a child, it is her right to terminate the pregnancy.

[Kipepeo]

31. I second this post

It's a woman's body. That should be the end of the story but they'll want to make it otherwise (debating personhood, morality, blah blah blah). The point is, their personal feelings on morality and personhood are a-okay as long as they don't try to force those personal opinions on another woman's body. Because the fetus resides within the woman it IS NOT POSSIBLE to give the fetus rights without stripping the woman of her right to make medical decisions regarding her body. Giving a fetus legal rights is to demote women to second class citizenship.

[JHBowden]

24. Judith Thomson

This philosopher has many arguments supporting the pro-choice position, some being better than others.

[JohnLocke]

26. Here:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Abortion/Pro-Choice/

[gumby]

30. EASY

Women can not be considered equal citizens in ANY society without the recognized ability to control their fertility. Period. The End.

Without that recognized right, women are “property” of the State.

All Dittohead arguments about “we make all sorts of laws about what people can do with their bodies” are not applicable in this case.

There is no other instance where one human person shares the same physical space with a potential human. If the State gives rights to the potential human over the existing human, then the State negates the existing person as an autonomous being. This is the essence of “choice.”

The “choice” is whether the State recognizes women as autonomous beings.

Get it?

[noiretextatique]

34. that's the real bottom line, gumby

and your post explains it very succintly and eloquently.
welcome to DU :hi: