Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: Apolyton Debate #2

[yin26]

The second of the Apolyton Debate Club's debates, the teams and judges look like this:

Pro-Life: Stefu, d_dudy, our_man, November Adam
Pro-Choice: Ramo, bondetamp, devilmunchkin, SITS
Judges: Hoek, Jon Miller, MacTBone, DinoDoc
Moderator: Yin (As moderator, I will help things stay moving along)

PEOPLE NOT IN THE DEBATE should post remarks in the comments thread. The outline of the system and rules are also in that thread.

Both teams are now in the 'Discovery Phase,' which opens the debates with a neutral round of defining terms and asking each other for any clarification. THIS IS NOT DEBATING just yet. When both sides are satisfied they understand each other's terms, I will then call for opening statments. Good luck guys!

[Provost Harrison]

I am sure I have been omitted from the pro-choice team, haven't I?

[yin26]

PH: I'm writing a reply in the comments thread.

[SITS]

The Voices for Choices in order are:-

SITS
devilmunchkin
Ramo
bondetamp


Definition: Pro-Choice is just that. That a woman has the choice what to do with her body and has more rights than the foetus. Pro-Choice is not saying that you should choose an abortion but that you have a right to choose one if you so wish.


I would like the Pro-Lifers to state what they mean by Pro-Life.

[Stefu]

In order, the Voices of Life are:

Stefu
our_man
d_dudy
November Adam

Before we start, I have one, rather crucial, point to make: PLEASE PLEASE stick to labels Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. No foolery like calling your opponent "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Choice". No, no matter how well you think your label fits the other side, it's still an insult, and cheap one, at that. If we both use the terms the sides prefer to use about themselves, we can conduct this civilly.

Now, to define Pro-Life point of view: From the moment of conception (well, I differ in this, but I'm arguing the same point as rest of the team, for sake of clarity), the fetus is alive and human, and thus has same right to live as any other human. Thus, from Pro-Life point of view, issue of choice is a moot point, since we generally don't grant people the right to choose to kill other people.

[bondetamp]

Originally posted by Stefu
Before we start, I have one, rather crucial, point to make: PLEASE PLEASE stick to labels Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. No foolery like calling your opponent "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Choice". No, no matter how well you think your label fits the other side, it's still an insult, and cheap one, at that. If we both use the terms the sides prefer to use about themselves, we can conduct this civilly.

I agree whole heartedly.

Now, to define Pro-Life point of view: From the moment of conception, the fetus is alive and human, and thus has same right to live as any other human.

That seems like a fair definition of your stance. I'd like though, if you could detail what the pro-life team puts into the term "alive and human". This, I am sure you can agree, can be rather crucial in the oncomming debate.

[yin26]

Pro-life team: Care to address those terms 'alive' and 'human'?

[November Adam]

I will put forward the definitions "alive", and "human" for our team,

Alive- a life form showing celluar growth and development.

Human- to belong to the homo sapien species.

[November Adam]

bump

[yin26]

If there are no other terms to be defined, I would ask:

TEAMS PLEASE POST YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS

[DinoDoc]

Bump

[yin26]

Wow. These must be some amazing Opening Statements being crafted somewhere...

[SITS]

I will be posting my opening statement later today - work commitments have prevented me from posting it sooner.

[yin26]

O.K. Cool. Thought the pulse stopped on this debate.

[SITS]

The Voices for Choices - Opening Statement

The title of the debate is Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. I think it is important to look at the words that are used.

Pro-Choice is just that. It advocates that a woman should have the choice and freedom to abort a foetus or to keep it. It is not saying that women should choose to have an abortion but that they should have a right to one if they so wish.

Pro-Life is a bit trickier. In literal terms it means that it is for life. Life is to be valued. Great! But what is life? In one sense if a Pro-Lifer isn't a vegan then how can they say that they are a Pro-Life without being a hypocrite? Ah, but you say a cow isn't alive as it isn't sentient like us wonderful humans so therefore it is OK to slap it on a bun with a secret sauce. Then the Pro-Lifer must concede that there are degrees of life and their argument is that humans should be protected and the rest should be eaten. So then all Pro-Lifers are against wars, the death penalty and stuff like that right? If all life is sacred (well human life is, fluffy life less so) then the killing of a human being is wrong and therefore a Pro-Lifer is against the killing of any human being, right? Yet you don't see many people that proclaim themselves to be Pro-Lifer's at anti-war demonstrations or picketing outside the prison to save Timothy McVeigh.

So unless Team Pro-Life proclaims that they are vegans then they concede that there are degrees of life.

And unless Team Pro-Life proclaims that they are against the killing of any human beings then they concede that it is OK to kill human beings in certain circumstances.

Pro-Life is looking more like Pro-lifeish-maybe-but-except. The all life is sacred argument is looking to align itself with the word hypocritical.

If someone isn't a vegan or against killing then it is hard for them to honestly describe themselves as Pro-Life. So what is Pro-Life all about?

It can be said that Pro-Life is actually about control. The Pro-Life stance says that a woman should have no right of control over their body and that she must cede that basic right over to the State. The State would decide what happens to that woman’s body for nine months. The State will decide that the woman has to risk her life, have her body changed permanently and prevent her from leading the life she led previously. She must stop smoking, drinking, having life saving treatments that might harm the foetus (Chemotherapy anyone?), or make them give birth to their rapists/fathers baby etc. The State would deny women basic human rights. Hey! Isn’t it about time that people forgave Eve for feeling a bit peckish?

Clearly people should be able to decide what happens to their own bodies - to do otherwise can only be the worst kind of oppression. I would go so far as to say that men (including myself) should restrict their expression of their views on abortion. For it cannot be valid that someone can decide what should be done to another human beings body if they are fit to decide for themselves. A male thinking that they have a valid view on abortion is saying that they have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to their bodies, which is just male oppression of females.

The Pro-Lifers have stated that human life starts at conception - when the sperm and egg join together. To say otherwise would mean that:

blow-jobs are murder
Menstruation is murder
nocturnal emissions are murder
and Buk kake is a multiple homicide.

Which would leave various Japanese men a bit worried.

So if Team Pro-Life says that life only begins at conception then they are saying that a human life is one cell and that one cell should be given the same rights as a human being. Hmm. So the Pro-Lifers extend more protection to a single cell than to a much more complex being (and sentient) i.e. a woman? Or will they say that that cell is special because it has the potential to be a human being? If so, when cloning becomes a possibility will they prosecute people for using a hairbrush too vigorously as those strands of hairs will then have the potential of being a human being…? No, of course not because men might be prosecuted then…

The single cell argument is interesting especially as I suspect that the Pro-Lifers will say that there are degrees of life and they just happen to put the threshold at that single cell. Yet I also suspect that that single cell would struggle to compete in the sentience stakes with a Pre-Whopper with cheese cow yet they would put at risk a woman’s life to save that cell. I can’t say it makes much sense to me either…


Mother Nature aborts foetuses

One compelling argument for women having the right to abort foetuses is that Mother Nature has a mechanism to do just that – miscarriage. If the foetus is deemed to be ‘unhealthy’ or for other reasons that haven’t been fathomed out then the woman’s body can abort the foetus. Yet by the definition of the Pro-Lifers then this murder (or would it be manslaughter?)

“I put it to you Ms Smith that you did have a heavy Period six weeks after having unprotected sex with Mr Jones and the result of this heinous act was the death of something that had the potential of being the next Robbie Williams. How do you plead?”

“Shove your male oppression up you arse, sir!”

“Your Honour the witness is being uncooperative!”

“Well, she does have a point…”

So the termination of foetuses is actually allowed for by Mother Nature herself yet the Pro-Lifers wish to make it a crime.


Choice

A woman having a choice means that the people of my generation have actually been chosen. My mother had the opportunity to abort me but she chose not to. She had the freedom yet she chose to bring me up. Not only was I born, I was born freely and I was born free. Which is a crucial basic human right that the Pro-Lifers wish deny women in the future. Nice, eh?

To recap

1) Unless the Pro-Lifers say that veganism is the way to go then they concede that there are degrees of life.

2) Unless the Pro-Lifers are against the killing of any human being in any situation then they concede that there are legitimate reasons for human beings to be killed.

3) Pro-Life is about control and the oppression of women.

4) A pregnant woman should have the same basic rights to her body as is extended to living human beings.

5) It is not right for men to impose their beliefs on an issue that cannot apply to them.

6) Buk kake is not a multiple-homicide.

7) A foetus becomes a human being (i.e. having the same rights) when it becomes independent from the woman’s body. To state otherwise would mean that the women’s right to life is less than a single cell.

8) Abortion is a natural mechanism that promotes the survival of the race. A woman choosing to abort a foetus because she could not love the child it might become is a perfectly valid survival instinct.

9) Allowing a woman to have the freedom to choose what she does with her body means that she isn’t forced to bring a child into the world against her will. That is a right that needs to be protected.

In the end it is about choice and I choose the rights of a woman over that of a single cell. I choose the rights of a person born to the world to something that has not. Choice.