Pro choice people eventually become pro life

So make up your mind. Do you support abortion in other women right up to birth or at some point do you think it should be illegal and remember right up to birth means exactly that. Even if you think that means one minute before birth at that point you become pro life.

 

Pro Choice means exactly what it sounds like...she gets to decide. IF she decides to break the law any consequences are on her....but it's still a choice.

 

No offense but that's kind of a dumb position. Essentially you are saying you are pro choice for all crime because you support the choice of the perp to break any law they desire.The consequences are on them according to you but you ignore the consequences on the victim of the crime.

 

Let's step back a moment just to make sure we're clear on what you are saying. Is it your claim that by the third trimester, over 80% believe that an abortion should be illegal, save medical emergency?

 

That is what YOU are saying, not me. I am saying that in this situation the woman who has the body in question gets to decide what happens to it and her life. I ask again that you refrain from misrepresenting what I type by replacing it with your own BS.

 

I've been against you for this whole thread, but thank you. It's good to know that you will reject an idea based upon logic, to the point, I suspect, that you would call out someone who is supporting your conclusion with bad logic.

 

Actually on the high side of 80% according to polls become anti abortion. Whether they support an actual law banning it is not specifically answered. My last post on law was in response to a hypothetical posed by another poster. It would be an interesting poll to take though and see if massive anti abortion sentiment by the third trimester carried over to support of actual murder laws being imposed. My feeling is lots of people would go wobbly at that but I'm not sure.

 

You pretty clearly stated you would support her choice to break a law.

 

That may be what you are trying to say, but that is not what the post said.

"Pro Choice means exactly what it sounds like...she gets to decide. IF she decides to break the law any consequences are on her....but it's still a choice."

That is not a Pro-Choice position. Pro-Choice is about the ability to legally choose one option or the other. His response properly called out the faulty logic of your post, whether you intended it to be such or not.

 

Sorry but I'm not following your "logic" here.

 

Still not following your logic. The way I see it that poster said he supports the right of a woman to break a law

 

Ok so based on this, you might be running under a misconception. Personal support, i.e. being for or against, is separate from the legal stance. A lot of people who are personally "pro-life" as early as conception, may still be pro-choice legally as late as logistically possible.

So the big question here, and I hold that it is a big difference: are you wanting to discuss people's positions personally, or legally? Because if you are talking personal positions, then yes, I can absolutely agree with you. The behavior of mothers shows this out. But for legal stances, I do believe you are wrong. As noted a great number of people support the ability of a woman to choose abortion as late as they want, assuming still in their body.

Mind you there can be a separate conversation on what exactly that right entails. I think I have put up my artificial womb topic on this board. If I can find it I will post a link. Otherwise, I might have to start it.

 

I agree that is how his post read. That is what I was trying to point out to him. I don't assume that he intended to have his post come out that way, but that is indeed how it reads.

 

Dayum dude...STOP IT! I did not say that though I did say that if she did break the law (as in late term abortion) she must pay the consequences. You are beginning ti irritate me with your deceitful commentary.

 

Yes you have been operating under a misconception here. Read the OP again. It's pretty clearly based on pro choice verses pro life which is a personal opinion as per the OP. Any content of law was brought up by others and only responded to by me.
Nothing in the OP about law so I'm confused at your confusion.

 

I'm sure he didn't intend it to come out that way but it most certainly did and all I did was catch him at an attempt to obfuscate from the topic at hand because he knows he lost that debate. It kind of backfired on him.

 

You called out Tecoyah on improper logic. I am applauding you on that. i am saying that this indicates to me that you would call out improper logic, even if the conclusion supported your conclusion.

Let me give you an example. Back when Obama received the Nobel, there was a lot of criticism that he hadn't been in office long enough to receive the award. While I agreed that he didn't deserve the award (yes an opinion), it was illogical to claim time in office as the basis for not earning it since the committee was basing it on his lifetime achievement up to that point. I agreed with their what, just not their why.

You pointing out his logical...well crap, because that went beyond fallacy... just indicated to me that you would adhere to logic even if you had to call out someone who supported your conclusion. And that's not saying his post supported your conclusion. Just that how you responded to his post indicated the high probability to call out someone with bad logic who supported your conclusion.

 

You tried deceit. I merely caught you at it and turned your own words back on you.

 

Okay, got ya now and it was my error for assuming you were trying to slam me in some way due to our past conversations in this thread. Preconceived conception clouded my judgement.

 

No, that's exactly what you said, intended or not. And given that JoesphWalker and I have been on opposite sides this whole thread, it's not me supporting someone who agrees with me.

 

Yeah that is where the confusion begins. You did not clearly explain that you are not looking at an individual's personal stance vs their legal stance. This whole time I, and I am sure many others, have been reading this as if you are saying that people's legal stance changes somewhere along the gestation line, with the exact point being highly variable. Your wording is highly suggestive that you are talking about people's legal stance and not explicitly excluding that stance. I'm willing to bet that this is why most people have been arguing against your stance.

To all the others following this thread, I'd be interested to know if you too got the same conclusion of what JosephWalker's intent was from the OP as I did.

 

Dude, power to you. I think I will probably enjoy future conversations with you, even if we're on opposite sides. It takes a big man to admit that. I wish more were like that.

BTW, did you realize that your second response to me was quoting my response to him?

 

Buh bye...Have A Nice Day

 

Buh bye...Have A Nice Day

 

Some may indeed think I have been arguing for laws and at some point I guess the conversation had to go there so let's follow it up.
If a question was posed to America about Abortion becoming muder at one minute before birth I think based on opinion polls roughly the same amount that oppose late term Abortion would support that law so then you start walking the time back. Okay how about two minutes before birth, an hour before birth, a week before birth...... Once you commit to calling abortion a crime one minute before birth when do you bail out and say okay now it's not a crime? Under this scenario I think it would be safe to say based on opinion polling that very early third trimester would be when people started bailing out in mass.