Being ProLife doesn't mean to be ProBirth

Legal Issue/Disclaimer

Let's address this legally problematic accusation.

I have been accused of an illegal appeasing or allowance for the genocide of children in particular in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas conflict.

It is essential to disregard this completely as I did not raise this inside this debate at all and also because it’s a lie. I have a deep understanding of the tragedy that has been occurring in Gaza and the fault lies in primarily Jihadist nutjobs. I hold Hamas responsible for intentionally placing human shields, including children, in harm’s way and even utilising boys in particular to assist them with getting ammunition and even direct warfare at times. The definition of ‘boy’ is any male under 18 so literal members of Hamas have themselves been boys.

I accuse my opponent of libel if he continues this at all and will get mods involved.

What are ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-birth’ stances?

Let’s start with Pro-Life (credit to Google’s search AI)

3 sources it utilised are:

focusonthefamily

Fiveable

crossway.org

A pro-life stance is the belief that all human life has value and should be protected from conception. This position opposes abortion, arguing it is the unjust killing of a human being, and advocates for policies and laws that restrict or ban it. The pro-life movement also extends to protecting vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly and disabled, and supporting families. 

Core beliefs and goals

Value of all life: Pro-life advocates believe that a fetus has a fundamental right to life from conception and that this right should be protected. This belief is often extended to include all human life, regardless of age, ability, or dependence.

Opposition to abortion: The central goal is to oppose abortion, viewing it as a violation of the fetus's human rights.

Legislative action: The movement aims to restrict or ban abortion through legislation, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws, and outright bans.

Broader life ethic: For many, the stance is not limited to abortion but encompasses support for a wide range of issues that promote and protect life, including support for families, the poor, and the vulnerable. 

Common arguments and focus areas

Support for women and families: The movement includes efforts to support pregnant women and new mothers through programs like pregnancy resource centers that offer services such as free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds.

Opposition to "pro-choice": The pro-life stance is often defined in contrast to the "pro-choice" stance, which defends a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

Emphasis on rights: Pro-life advocates believe basic human rights should extend to all humans regardless of factors like sex, race, or location.

And what is it to be ‘pro birth’? Well this term does not exist as much inside philosophy and politics, instead there is a direct line of debate known as Antinatalism which is the inverse of being pro-birth and also is heavily opposed to being pro-life.

Let’s first explore Natalism and pronatalism:

Natalism is the belief that having many children and raising large families is morally or economically important. Natalist pressure comes from many sources but is most commonly found in political and religious contexts. Both governments and religious leaders have a vested interest in encouraging their followers to reproduce, resulting in larger numbers of citizens or members of a religion in coming generations. For this reason, natalism is sometimes associated with conservative religious views or authoritarian governments.

Despite a rise in natalist policies in many Western nations, birth rates have continued to drop. Some prospective parents avoid having children because of economic difficulties. Others worry that they will not be able to manage an acceptable work-life balance while raising children or that larger populations may exacerbate the symptoms of global climate change or other large-scale problems. Though governments work to ease these anti-natalist sentiments, they have seen limited success.

^ ebsco

Now, I am not claiming this is identical to being pro-birth. To be pro-birth is a more watered down variant of Natalism. Natalism inherently supports strong, large families and structures society in this way in its ideal form. Pro-birth is the part of Natalism that is pro births occurring but would even encourage a birth to a dysfunctional single mother or even that of an orphan to a mother that dies in childbirth.

Pro-life and Pro-birth do align but to be fully pro-life is indeed not identical to being pro-birth. The main difference is that pro-life stance in its fullness has Natalism aspects that enable and encourage large families to function. In many ways it’s ironic that the right wing is associated with being pro-life since it requires decent child welfare and generosity from the wealthy to poor large families for a fully pro-life, natalist society to function.

If the debate’s resolution was that being pro-birth doesn’t mean to be pro-life I would admit I do not have much of a case here. Instead, the resolution states that being pro-life isn’t to be pro-birth. Being pro-birth is an essential component of being pro-life, no matter how we twist it. Pro-life is linked to Natalism and it more than just being pro-Birth but it absolutely contains that inside of it.

Credit to Google AI

3 sources it utilised:

wikipedia

timesofsandiego

self.com

Key distinctions

Focus: "Pro-birth" emphasizes the outcome of birth, while the broader "pro-life" movement aims to protect life from conception and includes the period after birth.

Support for post-birth: Critics using the term "pro-birth" argue that some who are "pro-life" do not support government policies and social programs that aid mothers and children after they are born.

Usage: The term "pro-birth" is often used by those who oppose "pro-life" policies to highlight what they see as a focus on fetal rights at the expense of the pregnant person's or child's well-being.

Pro-Birth is inside Pro-Life. Pro-Life is a grander thing linked to Natalism.

In Italy being pro-life as the activists meant, means to take care firstly of all form of life that are here with us, that already born.

Okay, so what you are saying is that being Pro-life includes more than being Pro-birth. I agree.

This movement is anti-bellicus, against war, read Oriana Fallaci for example she was in Vietnam reporting the massacres done to the viets by the USA and she was pro life and she supported abortions.

'Bellicus' is Latin for warrior, in case any are confused. What Pro is stating afterwards is actually irrelevant to the debate, sort of.

He stated that Oriana Fallaci is anti-war yet isn't Pro-life and also isn't Pro-birth. This is her outlook, she may be dubbed pro-life by Pro but fails to meat the actual definition for it I outlined in my initial Round.

The mental health fall that can cause an unwillingly pregnancy is a serious issue, firstly there is the host's life, then the fetus or whatever that plump of cell is -especially for raping cases.

I completely agree to this. The type of pro-birth people who don't extend that to the overall pro-life movement that would take care of post-natal depression women so on and so forth, are a problem. They are however, pro-birth. What this debate literally says is:

Being ProLife doesn't mean to be ProBirth

The statement is the inverse of what it seems Pro meant to argue. Pro wants to argue that being Pro-birth on its own isn't being entirely Pro-Life. This is true because Pro-life is being more than just Pro-birth. However, you have to be Pro-Natalist to some degree to be truly Pro-Life.

Burden of proof: although life is linked to natalism, defending already living people is MUCH important that defending the potential life of a 7 week fetus, which can scientifically be classified as a parasite as long its viability.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't matter at all.

Poor people that collect welfare and benefits and definitely the unemployed amongst them can be dubbed parasites on the nation at least in the short-run if we presume they don't end up productive. The Pro-Life stance is actually, as I said, not truly right wing. It is a centrist position that either wing can take because a true Pro-Life stance would either use Food Bank charities and more in a right-wing society to achieve its goal of feeding the parasitic humans or would use welfare and benefits in a left-wing society, more so.

Pro-Life does include sustaining parasites whether they're unborn or born. Especially if those parasites are of the species Homo Sapien. It's a selfless, caring stance rooted in moral concern and in fact in religious concern but one can be a secular humanist and end up being Pro-Life.

On the morality side of the river, only being against abortion is much more unethical than defending already living people and organisms and also being also being in favor of the host's choice.

Again, this is Pro's own opinion. It does not relate to the debate.

I will argue against the previous 2 quotes with a simple analogy.

Is killing a 5 year old, raping, anything at all to a 5 year old worse than to a 25 year old and both worse than to a 45 year old? Generally, we'd say it is, especially killing because you rob the young being of far more years of their life, indisputably, on average than another older human.

The criminals most hated by all are those that harm children, albeit mainly sexually rather than by murder.

corrections1.com

abcnews.go.com

I am unsure why exactly 'child killer' hatred isn't explored nearly as much in the News, what I know is that any child abuser of any kind will find Prison a living hell.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-hate-child-abusers-in-jail

Now, let's consider someone younger than age 0. We say they're age 0 when they're born but this is a societally agreed upon lie that it portrays as truth. An average baby is born 8-9 months alive, maximum 10 usually. It's clearly worse to kill a 1 year old infant than to do the same to a 30 year old. So, what exactly is Pro talking about? Nobody who is Pro-Life would understand it. In the end abortion is murder of an infant but it gets dubbed non-murder purely due to semantic ploys.

Nonetheless, abortion should be seen not as a murder of a willingly living organism, but instead of a much more accessible treat for women and for their own life, whether it's physical or whether it's mental, the government shouldn't mind the choice of the treatment.

By this logic if you are unconscious, asleep or in fact if you have depression and are considering suicide, your lack of 'will' against it should itself justify killing you coming under non-murder. That isn't how things work, thank God for that.

Good to know that I've stated before that unconscious people and depresses lack of will so if we kill them no one minds it.

I think police should be investigating you then, however that statement alone isn't enough to get the warrant.

It'll be nice to understand that a plump of cells of 2 months HASN'T a DEVELOPED central nervous system and can't feel pain, it's a scientifically proven fact. You woman don't practice abortion after the fetus has at the moment 15/16 or maybe even 25 weeks, that's murdering, the fetus at that time I've mentioned CAN feel pain, at the moment of the abortion it CANNOT.

This is a brand new point in the final Round. The full extent of pro-choice is all the way up to birth. American states that had pro-choice provision had this and it's still legal to slaughter an 8-9 month old baby inside of Europe if it has a condition like down's syndrome.

Also, the idea that they aren't allowed to abort close to 25 weeks is a lie:

In netherlands they can. In iceland they can. About the only West European nation where people truly can't get it done past 12 weeks is Ireland.

You need to realise what it means to say that if the child will have down's syndrome that it's okay to slaughter it far past the weeks permitted if it didn't. What is going on is eugenics of the most literal kind. By 'literal' I mean this isn't even tweaking genes or pushing for a specific type of birthing and pregnancy that will improve the genetics and/or foreseeable life quality of the being. Instead, this is literally exterminating humans based on that fact you deem them unworthy to live based on a condition like Down's Syndrome.

I am not oblivious to the fact some conditions that aren't Down's Syndrome that justify abortion under EU nation's laws will truly be agony for the offspring to live through. Nonetheless, I must ask a most fundamental question; is suffering being present enough reason to murder an infant?

No. It is not.

The Pro-Life movement is dedicated to both Pro-Birth stance and improving the lives of those that get born with setbacks. It is both.

You thanks me for my fallacies, I thank you for your ignorance. Let's not play games.