If abortion is banned in America, are you (as a man who had sex with and impregnated a woman) fully

Openminded

Argument Topic: And again it is there choice. Women dont have to tolerate side effects either they just have to determine which is more important for them. Women can equally tell the man, wear a condomn, get a vasectomy, or use this gel or im not having sex with you. Men will get the picture

@MichaelElpers
Yes, freedom of choice blah blah blah. Again, you simplify the female position. The onus has always been placed on the female. This will change if abortion is banned. I´ve read that since 2022, vasectomies have increased, so perhaps you´re right, men will get the picture. This is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, while vasectomy reversals are possible, they are not guaranteed. This will be a choice the male will need to make for himself. The onus will be placed on the male. As for alternate birth control for men, I´m curious to see if this advances. My guess is that it´ll flop as men will be unable to tolerate unpleasant side affects. We must continue to involve the men in abortion conversation. And the beat goes on ....

John_C_87

@Openminded
This will change if abortion is banned

You’re not explaining how abortion is to be band it is an international law, abortion law is practice simply in states of a of an otherwise Constitutional Union. Just to make a comparison female-specific amputation is a United States Constitutional right it hasn't been ratified into a United States Constitutional law of Right, but it is still a more perfect union with established justice both a united state and Constitutional right. The criminal act legislated as Abortion, this grievance will always be a criminal law even if only downgraded to be filed as only 1st degree murder.

John_C_87

@Openminded
We must continue to involve the men in abortion conversation.

Men are involved in a conversation and debate about female-specific amputation not abortion.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

What do you mean freedom of choice blah blah blah? That is 100% truth.

It is false to say more onus placed on one party over the other. The female does have a bigger consequence so she does have a better reason to be more careful but the responsibility for the act is the same.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
The female does have a bigger consequence so she does have a better reason to be more careful but the responsibility for the act is the same.
No, it is not the same at all. A woman is only in the United States Constitution in its current context because her right to vote is conditional right, and any possible child of hers is held in place both before and after her own existence as posterity. The criminal law system is not asking for women of all ages to take a chance with their lives it is making a demanded they take the chance by threat of criminal law.

What do you mean freedom of choice blah blah blah? That is 100% truth.

She may mean that sometimes two or more choices given and not described by the person seeking liberty can all have the same consequence, that is freedom of choice. The choices given do not satisfy the grievances of women as a United State... I could be wrong, but I understand prochoice and prolife as being on the same side. Two different ways to say the same thing the judgment is made on Life and not established justice in the form of United States Constitutional Right.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Men are involved in a conversation and debate about female-specific amputation not abortion.

@John_C_87
John, what is female-specific amputation?

Openminded

Argument Topic: What do you mean freedom of choice blah blah blah? That is 100% truth. It is false to say more onus placed on one party over the other. The female does have a bigger consequence so she does have a better reason to be more careful but the responsibility for the act is the same.

@MichaelElpers

Nobody is talking about the responsibility for the act of sex. We´re talking about the responsibility of birth control.

You say the woman has to be more careful - that means she has more of the burden - for now. I believe this will change with the development of male contraception; it´s use will be necessary to ensure the safest sex. Currently more vasectomies are being performed on men since the states abortion ban. Many men prefer vasectomies over condom use - that decision will be placed on the male. No more clunky condoms, but what if he decides he will want children in the future? Reversals are not guaranteed. The male birth control pill is currently in development which may be a better option for men who don´t want to risk the possibility of never having children. This pill does come with side effects such as headaches, mild erectile dysfunction, reduced sex drive, fatigue and weight gain. It´s side effects are still being tested for depression and the risk of blood clots as the female birth control causes. The point? More onus will be placed on the male. And that´s a good thing.

John_C_87

@Openminded

John, what is female-specific amputation?

First what isn't female specific amputation. it is not Abortion.

A medical amputation only a women can have among many things it is a self-evident truth. Female-specific amputation is also a constitutional right that is a more perfect union as a united state between all women. Holding them in a way which creates them as equals within the state of grievance which compels their separation from United States Constitutional Right.

ensure the safest sex.

Here rests the problem with the more perfect united right in connection to established justice and United States Constitution. Safe sex on a United State Constitutional lever deals with a women’s life as an ambassador of posterity meaning sexual disease and death during delivery of posterity.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

What do you mean by the word burden?
I take it as she has the main responsibility of using birth control.
I dont believe she does.

Her consequential burden is larger because she carries risk of pregnancy.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

Her consequential burden is larger because she carries risk of pregnancy.

Not speaking on behalf of openminded a woman in America as a citizen carries a greater risk for, she is the deliverer of American posterity. The risk is hers and hers alone before pregnancy. It is her risk and her risk alone after pregnancy. The American United States Constitutional Right holds no women prisoner a woman has a right to declare herself and other women Independent. The choice women need to face is they all in, or are they all out of the responsibility to perform the work of what a president of the United States is required to do by oath of office of President of the United States of America. If you have not noticed by now in your life criminal law are not the united states of self-evident truth talked about as fact. As what might be suggested by the instruction of inuendo that the governing American named state, or states of law in other nations are the only states of possible choice.

I take it as she has the main responsibility of using birth control.

This the above is not fact entered into Constitutional preamble, a woman has the main responsibility of the use of a common defense towards the general welfare to ensure a tranquility for posterity. A women can be a defender and work at both preserving and protecting United States Constitutional Right as Presadera. With only the shared knowledge of how and the ample time to do so. The fact that a women cannot do it as a President of the United States of America is relevant here as it limits a women’s choices greatly when a women cannot make the connection by law as Constitutional Right one can be made on her behalf once it is established a proof of harm to the security of America can be made.

Openminded

Argument Topic: What do you mean by the word burden? I take it as she has the main responsibility of using birth control. I dont believe she does. Her consequential burden is larger because she carries risk of pregnancy.

@MichaelElpers

burden - a heavy load, or to cause someone worry, hardship or distress.

The responsibility of contraception SHOULD be shared by both male and female. If you believe the man shares the responsibility of birth control equally, okay. My personal experience, other´s accounts and research suggests otherwise.

My debate question: ¨If abortion is banned in America, are you (as a man who had sex with and impregnated a woman) fully prepared for the consequences?¨ I believe this was the question. I´m a greenhorn on this site and my question was too long and was cut off.

I´ve learned much and hopefully you are more enlightened.

If abortion is banned, men will bear greater accountability in:

1) choosing the most effective contraception for himself. Yes, the stakes will be much higher for adolescents/men. Condoms are not 100% reliable and are risky. Vasectomies are not always reversible. Obviously withdrawal is not acceptable. Further development of the male birth control pill is in the works along with an injectable form of birth control but pharmaceuticals claim that adverse side effects will not be tolerated by men. Let´s hope that one will be on the market soon for men.

2) accepting the possibility of many side effects of male contraception pills such as acne, headaches, mild erectile dysfunction, reduced sex drive, fatigue, weight gain

3) understanding that even if contraception is used by both, there is still a possibility of pregnancy and

4) if contraception fails, full fatherhood obligations will be placed on him immediately.

The highest expectations and involvement of men will be the recourse women will take.

John_C_87

@Openminded

4) if contraception fails, full fatherhood obligations will be placed on him immediately.

A male can Constitutionally seek a female specific amputation through the courts as well as the Nations Armed Services. A male may still do so with abortion but it is a violation of privacy laws with women I know it will not change when men are allowed to violate the law as well. This is and was in part why men did not what women to be a part of the United States Constitutional Right and keep abortion as a criminal accusation on an international level. It does not appear as though all females are aware of this issue of fact being created equal under criminal law or United States Constitutional law. Are you? A male can be exposed to may kinds of things in the environment that would harm posterity of any nation to have him make such a request of the courts.

What is unfair is the treatment the United States Constitution has received from the justice system and Oval Office not just from President's, women, but from many men as well during this Civil War, or War of United State dependence if you prefer.

just_sayin

@Openminded
For laughs and giggles I put this paragraph in an AI app and asked what it means:

A male can Constitutionally seek a female specific amputation through the courts as well as the Nations Armed Services. A male may still do so with abortion but it is a violation of privacy laws with women I know it will not change when men are allowed to violate the law as well. This is and was in part why men did not what women to be a part of the United States Constitutional Right and keep abortion as a criminal accusation on an international level. It does not appear as though all females are aware of this issue of fact being created equal under criminal law or United States Constitutional law. Are you? A male can be exposed to may kinds of things in the environment that would harm posterity of any nation to have him make such a request of the courts.

Here is it's response:

This statement is misleading and inaccurate.

The statement suggests that a male can seek a female-specific amputation through the courts and the military, and that this is a violation of privacy laws for women. However, there is no legal basis for such a claim, and it is not supported by any credible sources.

In the United States, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all individuals, regardless of their gender. This means that men and women have the same rights and protections under the law, including the right to access medical procedures such as abortion. The decision to have an abortion is a personal and private one, and it is not subject to the approval or disapproval of the government or any other entity.

Furthermore, there is no legal or medical basis for the idea that men can seek female-specific amputations. Amputations are medical procedures that are performed to remove a body part that is no longer functioning or is causing harm. They are not gender-specific, and there is no such thing as a “female-specific amputation.”

It is important to note that spreading misinformation and false claims can be harmful and perpetuate discrimination. It is essential to rely on credible sources of information and to verify the accuracy of any claims before accepting them as true.

AI has come a long way. It would have been quicker it it said 'this is gibberish', but it did recognize it was incoherent. Some people post gibberish in the hopes that others will try to find meaning in it. That's some people's shtick. Capice?

John_C_87

@just_sayin

The statement suggests that a male can seek a female-specific amputation through the courts and the military, and that this is a violation of privacy laws for women. However, there is no legal basis for such a claim, and it is not supported by any credible sources.

The statement suggests the male can seek a female specific amputation for a female through the courts and Armed Service. We agree there is no legal precedent on record, the claim is a United State Constitutional Right.

Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12
Beyond HIPAA: International Health Data Protection in Europe and Canada (atlantic.net)

In the United States, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all individuals, regardless of their gender. This means that men and women have the same rights and protections under the law, including the right to access medical procedures such as abortion. The decision to have an abortion is a personal and private one, and it is not subject to the approval or disapproval of the government or any other entity.

My point exactly and a woman is not equally protected under United States Constitutional Right, which is law. This brings on a rather extensive number of violations as the phrase congress has a power through proper legislation to enforce these Articles had been used.

Furthermore, there is no legal or medical basis for the idea that men can seek female-specific amputations. Amputations are medical procedures that are performed to remove a body part that is no longer functioning or is causing harm. They are not gender-specific, and there is no such thing as a “female-specific amputation.”

A creation and delivery of human posterity is a risk to cause harm to a female. There are in fact medical procedures which are gender specific. How many men get a hysterectomy? This too is a form of amputation all of these are issues of privacy after the year 2000 in America according to criminal law.

It is important to note that spreading misinformation and false claims can be harmful and perpetuate discrimination. It is essential to rely on credible sources of information and to verify the accuracy of any claims before accepting them as true.

I have cited the United States American Constitution itself along with Constitutional Amendments that is a data entry opeerational error not mine. Misinformation and false claims can be harmful and perpetuate discrimination I agree funny statement to be made by a device call artificial intelligence. As for Presedera there is no other use for the word and I have cited in the past both medical medications and scientific descoveries for such creation of new found facts and objects.

"We the People" of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

AI has come a long way. It would have been quicker it said 'this is gibberish', but it did recognize it was incoherent. Some people post gibberish in the hopes that others will try to find meaning in it. That's some people's shtick. Capice?

The machine programming did at least replied so we can't say it had a brain fart. I sudenly feel like Paul Bunyan with his blue OX. which is the number 21 if you in the know.

Openminded

Argument Topic: For laughs and giggles I put this paragraph in an AI app and asked what it means:

@just_sayin
You seem to not have the ability to offer much to debates except playing defense and offense. Is this a maga trait? Nothing to offer, so offer your Maga Meanie?

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@just_sayin
You seem to not have the ability to offer much to debates except playing defense and offense. Is this a maga trait? Nothing to offer, so offer your Maga Meanie?

Think of me what you wish. John is capable of communicating clearly with you. The fun for him is to write something that is meaningless and see how others try to make meaning of it. If you think I'm wrong, do a quick review of his comments.

I made a point earlier when you were talking about rape that many would not support the death penalty for the rapist, but do support the death penalty for the innocent unborn child. You did not respond to why it is just to not kill the guilty but it is just to kill the innocent.

Throughout the discussion you have used verbiage that seeks to dehumanize the unborn child. The human life inside the womb is indeed a human being. I have argued that we should protect rather than kill innocent human life. You have deflected to attacks on MAGA or people of faith.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I made a point earlier when you were talking about rape that many would not support the death penalty for the rapist, but do support the death penalty for the innocent unborn child. You did not respond to why it is just to not kill the guilty but it is just to kill the innocent.

@just_sayin

I try to decipher John´s responses and admit it is difficult. I am still getting used to this site and the jury is still out on it. I left Twitter (X) when I detected the seemingly gleeful Elon Musk stoking anger and further dividing our country under the guise of freedom of speech.

Support for the death penalty for a mother who chooses abortion is abhorrent to me. And worse, the fact that this extreme view overlooks the original crime (the rapist´s heinous attack) and focuses on punishment for the mother is troubling and telling. Misogyny. To equate abortion with murder is in my view narrow-minded and an uninformed perspective. To disregard the mother - a viable, fallible, living being with human emotional struggles - and judge her based on your own intolerance and ignorance is self-righteous, lacking empathy, self-serving and most importantly unchristlike.

I respect women and understand that they may have struggles I do not understand. I also do not believe that abortion performed before the third trimester (88%) is murder as the majority of Americans believe. My intention is to encourage extreme pro-life individuals to comprehend the complexities of the issue instead of relying on a knee-jerk reaction and immediately punish the woman. Without that understanding, dehumanization of the WOMAN is the result.

Curious for you to explain to me what you think of the current case in Texas where a pregnant woman will be forced to carry to full-term a fetus with Trisomy 8 with almost no hope of survival outside the womb The desperate mother was refused the right to take care of her own body and health. This may also jeopardize the mother´s ability to carry another child. This is nothing but a sick, male power play and a complete misogynist move. We´re dumbing down to the South. And women have had enough of it.

just_sayin

@Openminded
I try to decipher John´s responses and admit it is difficult. I am still getting used to this site and the jury is still out on it.

Initially I thought John didn't speak good English and then I thought he might be a little crazed in the head with all of the US constitutional stuff. His comments though don't fit with either of those profiles.

Support for the death penalty for a mother who chooses abortion is abhorrent to me. And worse, the fact that this extreme view overlooks the original crime (the rapist´s heinous attack) and focuses on punishment for the mother is troubling and telling.

This is a straw man argument. No one has asked for the death penalty for the mother. However, you DO support the death penalty for rape for the innocent child who is just as much a victim as the woman was. You are always trying to dehumanize the child, is that to rationalize the heinous things you want to do to her?

I also do not believe that abortion performed before the third trimester (88%) is murder as the majority of Americans believe. My intention is to encourage extreme pro-life individuals to comprehend the complexities of the issue instead of relying on a knee-jerk reaction and immediately punish the woman.  Without that understanding, dehumanization of the WOMAN is the result.

I would observe that you do not respect the complexities of the issue. You are indeed able to see demands and harm that the progenitor faces in having to carry a child to term. However, you consistently minimize the more serious harm done to her child whose very life is taken from her.

'Murder' is a legal term. Abortion is not murder in most instances. Being legal and being moral are two different things though. You feel the interests of the pregnant person outweigh the interests of the innocent child. You value the progenitor's convenience and autonomy, over the life of the child. In my mind, the greater harm is death. Death takes everything from a person. In our judicial system, death is the most extreme form of punishment. We may have someone incarcerated for a period of time as punishment, but we reserve the punishment of death for the most extreme and heinous of crimes. In the same way, while their is harm in carrying the baby to term, it is not as extreme as the harm as killing a human life.

Curious for you to explain to me what you think of the current case in Texas where a pregnant woman will be forced to carry to full-term a fetus with Trisomy 8 with almost no hope of survival outside the womb The desperate mother was refused the right to take care of her own body and health.

This sounds like a show trial to me. If she wants to kill her child, it would be cheaper just to go out of state to do it. I do support abortion in instances where the physical life of the mother is at stake. In those instances the choice is one life over another, and I believe that someone can prioritize their existence over another's existence.

So you once again avoided the hypocrisy issue of not wanting to kill the rapist, but wanting to kill the innocent child who is just as much a victim as the woman. Why aren't you defending your call to kill the innocent and protect the guilty?

Openminded

@just_sayin

I don´t believe you want to debate reasonably or fairly. Therefore, Iḿ gonna cut my losses now.
Stay Mean Maga boy.

Openminded

Argument Topic: This is a straw man argument.

@just_sayin
For the record, I never said the rapist should be charged with murder.
Honestly, you sound like an angry person who justs wants to win and who is only willing to pontificate his views, but unable to listen to others.
That to me, is not a debate and the very reason I left Twitter(X). If I knew you were actually listening to the other side, I would participate in a debate but your arguments sound angry and one-sided, and AI´d up (touched up), which gives the impression you should be respected. But I have radar for . If you´re willing to debate - two sides to a debate - then act accordingly please. I joined this site to learn.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Your mish moshing between two states of law United States Constitutional right as law and criminal law, death penalty, innocent child, are both events in the criminal law system. Remember you said " unborn" child.

I made a point earlier when you were talking about rape that many would not support the death penalty for the rapist, but do support the death penalty for the innocent unborn child. Yeah, when the women or member of posterity dies as a resualt of illegal immigration created by a pregnacy, created by loss of protection's of a common defence of the gedneral welfare of all women who are held equal under United States Consitutional Right. Presadera.

Remember you said " unborn" child. This truth makes the child according to United States Constitutional right a member of posterity it is part of what can be one united state. In criminal law that state is perfectly described as a group in a set condition of children who cannot ever be charged with murder as "they" lack mental capacity. However this does not mean they cannot accidently kill the host of their migration as the child works its way into a spot in the world. When that one host a pregnant women is reduced to only one whom is yet still held in the perfect united state, group.

Initially I thought John didn't speak good English and then I thought he might be a little crazed in the head with all of the US constitutional stuff. His comments though don't fit with either of those profiles.

And, it was me who said as whole truth it is rape that can be attempted murder under many conditions it is not Openmind.

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

@just_sayin

Your mish moshing between two states of law United States Constitutional right as law and criminal law, death penalty, innocent child, are both events in the criminal law system. Remember you said " unborn" child.
I made a point earlier when you were talking about rape that many would not support the death penalty for the rapist, but do support the death penalty for the innocent unborn child. Yeah, when the women or member of posterity dies as a resualt of illegal immigration created by a pregnacy, created by loss of protection's of a common defence of the gedneral welfare of all women who are held equal under United States Consitutional Right. Presadera.
Remember you said " unborn" child. This truth makes the child according to United States Constitutional right a member of posterity it is part of what can be one united state. In criminal law that state is perfectly described as a group in a set condition of children who cannot ever be charged with murder as "they" lack mental capacity. However this does not mean they cannot accidently kill the host of their migration as the child works its way into a spot in the world. When that one host a pregnant women is reduced to only one whom is yet still held in the perfect united state, group.
Initially I thought John didn't speak good English and then I thought he might be a little crazed in the head with all of the US constitutional stuff. His comments though don't fit with either of those profiles.
And, it was me who said as whole truth it is rape that can be attempted murder under many conditions it is not Openmind.

Presadera - I haven't heard that word since https://www..com/user/viewprofile/John_C_1812 or since https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9951-too-old-to-be-president . Great word! Kudos for its use.

The Supreme Court ruled that states can decide when abortion is legal and when it is not. The 10th amendment of the Constitution says anything not expressly stated as a federal right is a right of the state.

In criminal law that state is perfectly described as a group in a set condition of children who cannot ever be charged with murder as "they" lack mental capacity. However this does not mean they cannot accidently kill the host of their migration as the child works its way into a spot in the world

I've given you a hard time, so I'll pretend your comment was perfectly clear. The unborn can in instances bring harm to the progenitor. However, in later term cases, it is generally quicker and less harmful to do a C section.

And, it was me who said as whole truth it is rape that can be attempted murder under many conditions it is not Openmind.

Your use of idioms is certainly superior to Openmind's. I don't think he got your point.

John_C_87

The Supreme Court ruled that states can decide when abortion is legal and when it is not.

The Supreme Court wrote an opinion and voted on it. Abortion was never and still is not described as a United States Constitutional Right like Female-specific amputation. There is no presumption of innocence in a United State Constitutional Right it is not a crime to be found guilty of it is not that kind of law. The lower Courts of law only can determine if a person is guilty or innocent of abortion it is a criminal law and does hold a presumption of innocence till proven guilty in a court of law.

The 10th amendment of the Constitution says anything not expressly stated as a federal right is a right of the state.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The assignment of Ambassadors is a federal right expressly delegated. I would like to also point out that the people’s powers are delegated to the conditions set by the United States Constitutional Right as law..

Article II, Section II, paragraph II

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

By America's Declaration of Independence

"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

Accordingly there are a limited number of ways that a person may be asigned as ambassador, President / Presadera, Congress, Senate, and law of nature. should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. Presadera. All women are delcared equal by their creator which is a perfect united state of Right and not criminal law.

Text of the Declaration of Independence | Declaration Resources Project (harvard.edu)

The unborn can in instances bring harm to the progenitor.

Are you saying people have no idea a unborn can apply lethal force in a pattern that can be unpredictable?

A number of cases such as the Twinslayers Case, in England in 1327, were heard in the secular courts as part of the common law. Later, under Scottish common law, abortion was defined as a criminal offence unless performed for "reputable medical reasons", a definition which could be interpreted as sufficiently broad as to essentially preclude prosecution

Abortion criminal law did not originate form America under United States Constitutional Right it was a imported legislation of criminal law as a product serving criminal law of England first.

Abortion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

just_sayin

@John_C_87
I wish you spoke as clearly as you do on other debate sites. IYKYK. It would make for better conversations.

I'll play along. Again, if you want a constitutional law for abortion, just say so plainly. But you are wrong in "saying" that the constitution doesn't adequately address the issue. It is covered by the 10th amendment. SCOTUS has ruled on this several times. Most notably earlier this year. Texas abortion law is still the law because it has been found to be lawful by SCOTUS. There is no constitutional crisis because you would prefer something different.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Texas abortion law is still the law because it has been found to be lawful by SCOTUS.
That is correct abortion criminal law is still criminal law and not American United States Constitutional Right.

There is no constitutional crisis because you would prefer something different.
Different is not the word I would use, the six words I would use are more perfect connection to established justice. Crisis is not the word I would use to describe my grievance either.
.
Texas abortion law is still the law because it has been found to be lawful
This sounds so much like Executive officer #45. "The law is law because it is lawful." So, it is still not Explained by Justice, Congress, Senator, or Executive officer as being United States Constitutional worthy and was sent down to the State Courts anyway?

Again, if you want a constitutional law for abortion, just say so plainly.
It is not me women have asked for a United States Consitutional Right for a very long time now and maybe those women have just asked the wrong men all along, maybe the task was much harder then the grievance made it out to be. Don't know. I want what they want a United States Consitutionional Right between all women only. Meaning they are created equal by their creator in a united right nothing else. The law must be written without any crime in it. Abortion is taken already as a crime sorry it was a tough act to follow thats why I used three words to replace it.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
: an emotionally significant event or radical change of status in a person's life

Crisis Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Now that I mull over the remark of "there is no constitutional crisis" there as fact may be according to the deffinition of the word crisis.

if you want a constitutional law for abortion

I am going over the 1st Amendment right of what is said as common defense above to my understanding of truth constitutional law means either criminal or law of right. Abortion as a Constitutional criminal law for abortion is found in American Constitution as a product of immigrational regulations on posterity. The American United States Constitution simply is not adopting laws of England past connections to their Justice system. A law written as instruction on how to be right meaning specifically not criminal. Abortion law is an imperfect connection to rule over a people and only tell them what they are doing wrong without ever giving instruction on how to be right in any way. As was it wrong to tell a woman she can be a President of the United Sates of America without ever letting her try or telling her how to precisely reach the goal on a United State Constitutional level of only right. This is why you will find I will repeat the word Presadera many times.

I have found there to be harm in the ongoing connection to established justice this binds me by honor and liberty to uphold United States Constitutional Rights.

How laws are made | USAGov

Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

@just_sayin

Texas abortion law is still the law because it has been found to be lawful by SCOTUS.
That is correct abortion criminal law is still criminal law and not American United States Constitutional Right.

There is no constitutional crisis because you would prefer something different.
Different is not the word I would use, the six words I would use are more perfect connection to established justice. Crisis is not the word I would use to describe my grievance either.
.
Texas abortion law is still the law because it has been found to be lawful
This sounds so much like Executive officer #45. "The law is law because it is lawful." So, it is still not Explained by Justice, Congress, Senator, or Executive officer as being United States Constitutional worthy and was sent down to the State Courts anyway?

Again, if you want a constitutional law for abortion, just say so plainly.
It is not me women have asked for a United States Consitutional Right for a very long time now and maybe those women have just asked the wrong men all along, maybe the task was much harder then the grievance made it out to be. Don't know. I want what they want a United States Consitutionional Right between all women only. Meaning they are created equal by their creator in a united right nothing else. The law must be written without any crime in it. Abortion is taken already as a crime sorry it was a tough act to follow thats why I used three words to replace it.

Hey buddy. I appreciate the clearer voice. Thank you.

I have no problem with someone seeking a constitutional item about abortion. Either for or against. I do think the issue of protecting an innocent human life merits a constitutional protection and a constitutional amendment would help to solidify that right to life. I don't think that because there is no constitutional amendment that there is a legal crisis though. States may weigh the interests of the progenitor and the unborn child differently. That's true. But that is not really a 'crisis'.

Bogan

Abortion is here to stay, and the Catholics and those Protestant denominations which oppose it may as well demand that Creationism be taught in school science classrooms. Ain't gonna happen.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Now that I mull over the remark of "there is no constitutional crisis" there as fact may be according to the deffinition of the word crisis.

The right of the women is a United States Consitutional Right.

States may weigh the interests of the progenitor and the unborn child differently.

There is no child it is posterity. There is no unborn it is a immigration which creates a risk to life.

innocent human life

The posterity is not innocent in a court room where they are the accused, children are only ever presumed innocent due to age and the State is not clear on who is committing the crime. The child is dying inside the mother against the will of the State is fact, the person who is seeking the abortion is not the mother by United States Constitutional Right. The mother is a diplomat and ambassador to the “extremely” young child which is why it would be important to title this process Female Specific Amputation. The women are a victims of lethal force applied by the laws of Nature. What is clear is criminal law does not understand the Constitutional state of the union with established justice made in the use of abortion criminal law. That is the cause of the United States Constitutional Right crisis. It is no longer one child and one mother on trial. It is all women and all children of a certain age with a certain medical condition.

just_sayin

John_C_87 said:

@just_sayin
Now that I mull over the remark of "there is no constitutional crisis" there as fact may be according to the deffinition of the word crisis.
The right of the women is a United States Consitutional Right.
States may weigh the interests of the progenitor and the unborn child differently.
There is nn child it is posterity. There is no unborn it is a immigration which creates a risk to life.
innocent human life
The posterity is not innocent in a court room where they are the accused, children are only ever presumed innocent due to age and the State is not clear on who is committing the crime. The child is dying inside the mother against the will of the State is fact, the person who is seeking the abortion is not the mother by United States Constitutional Right. The mother is a diplomat and ambassador to the “extremely” young child which is why it would be important to title this process Female Specific Amputation. The women are a victims of lethal force applied by the laws of Nature. What is clear is criminal law does not understand the Constitutional state of the union with established justice made in the use of abortion criminal law. That is the cause of the United States Constitutional Right crisis. It is no longer one child and one mother on trial. It is all women and all children of a certain age with a certain medical condition.

Its hard to have a discussion with you when the words are not clear and muddled. Would love to engage more with you.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
Its hard to have a discussion with you when the words are not clear and muddled.

What I am saying is that the words in the United States Constitution that represent the women are ambasador, the word posterity is in the United State Consitution not child, baby, fetus, etc. the words in American United States Constitution that describe all unborn is immigration and posterity. The unborn child is a person who is in the process of immigrating as fact. The process is slow, it takes about 9 months for the migration down.

The criminal charges of abortion are against the child not the mother, the mother is the Abasador asigned by law of nature. It is you and others who have said the innocent child, if people feel that way it must be proven in a court of law, the ambasador is accused of murder because of the child’s unproven innocence. That is correct, is it not?

John_C_87

@Openminded
So here is the same idetical problem now being thrown at us from a different direction.

Ohio State Issues 1 and 2 (ohiosos.gov)

The State of Ohio places a criminal grievance on its Constitution as a Right which is a possible perjury. Do the people know Abortion is a Title to crime under criminal law and what they are doing is simple saying the women has a right to self-incriminate to murder both for herself and men, abortion being a degree of murder as a criminal law.

The American Declaration of Independence does not declare all women equal by their creator or Independent from English law as a right of Presadera, "She" who represents all women before American United States Constitutional Right. The bill of Rights consists of Rights of the people, for the people, not criminal laws of the people, for the people. The voters are duped into a lie which describes a crime as a Constitutional right and if one crime can be interpreted as a Constitutional right other have followed.

A true assessment of damage to America cannot be held until a factual United States Constitutional right is addressed. Abortion, though popular is not a united state of right and now voters of two states are subject to participating in a crime which they are led to believe they have an immunity for. As neither is given a choice and have only been allowed to participate in the crime or not vote and do not participate. Again, the Constitutional right is still female-specific amputation as it is not a criminal law that was written outside of America and imported into American Courts.

Women simply could not find the most perfect state of the union with established justice as a state of the union with United States Constitutional Right. Women had felt that they had been wronged by United States Constitutional right and did not see or understand that they had never separated themselves at risk from English law.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Leader Jeffries I Sunday on 60 Minutes

In this Debate

If abortion is banned in America, are you (as a man who had sex with and impregnated a woman) fully

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

burden - a heavy load, or to cause someone worry, hardship or distress.

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch