Should abortion be legal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should abortion be legal?
in Politics

I say no unless the mother's medical safety is threatened, or the baby might die. I believe life begins at conception for Biblical (Job 3:3), and scientific (this is the very beginning of our DNA. I am genetically the same now as I was as a zygote. I believe that from the moment of conception, people have the right to choose. I am not a conservative, I am a social democrat. Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the general. I support Medicare for all, including birth control and sterilizations for any grown a woman who has need. I was sterilized because I don;t want children either, but I am prolife, so no abortion. I live by my own code of honor. JMO, people, do not strawman me at all, but as always, stay awesome, and enjoy your free and honest speech. Love you, and Jesus bless you. Let me know if their is anything you need re this debate, or re the Christian faith, PEACE!
DrCerealVortexLeaderZombieguy1987cheesycheese
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    Should abortion be legal?
    I think it should be legal before a certain stage in the fetal development, a stage when the fetus begins to develop a nervous system which enables it to feel pain, and that it shouldn't be used in place of contraceptives. I, if I were a woman and were pregnant, wouldn't personally get an abortion, but I don't think we can determine such an ambiguous moral decision for every woman. If a woman decides that it would be better to have an abortion, then I feel that she should have the right to make that choice.
    Polaris95
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • @DrCereal abortion is murder. People in general have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, have your tubes removed, or don't have sex. It is really that simple.
    Zombieguy1987DrCerealVortexLeadercheesycheese
  • It seems to me that you're trying to answer the question of whether or not abortion should be legal without engaging with the repercussions of illegality. The majority of your position is based in morality (except for the scientific aspect, on which we disagree - DNA does change over time, and even if it didn't, a zygote is not the beginning of our DNA), and while there are certainly good points to make on that level, you can't really confront the question of legality with morality alone. Making something illegal, particularly a procedure like this, has consequences.

    Ignoring the questions of reproductive freedoms and women's rights, what happens if the vast majority of abortions just stop? Most of the associated clinics will close their doors, most of the personnel who have training in the procedure will move onto other areas, and far fewer people will be trained in how to do it. That dramatically reduces availability, which is a problem in cases where there is a medical emergency, particularly in rural areas where availability is already minimal. And speaking of medical emergencies, what agency or individuals will decide what constitutes such an emergency? If doctors make a judgement call against abortions, and their patient dies, they will almost certainly be subject to lawsuits, and presumably, they would be subject to lawsuits by the government if they perform unnecessary abortions, so doctors who perform abortions would be placed in a very delicate position, pushing more of them out of the business of doing abortions altogether. That means more women will be left without the option in the case of actual emergencies. The alternative is that it pushes the whole process of performing abortions underground. In that case, there may still be plenty of availability, but that availability is not subject to the law and, likely, performed with more dangerous means. Best case scenario, doctors are providing it under the table, in which case a large part of the medical establishment is effectively delivering black market care to patients. Worst case scenario, patients are providing it themselves, ensuring that these procedures are as dangerous and life-threatening as possible.

    And all of this just relates to availability. There are multiple other issues pertaining to psychological harms, already overwhelmed adoption systems, and abusive parents that would have to be handled as well. We can have a debate over the morality of abortion as a practice, but the morality of its removal as a practice from US clinics and hospitals plays into this as well.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    edited July 21
    @DrCereal abortion is murder. People in general have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, have your tubes removed, or don't have sex. It is really that simple.
    You say it's murder because you classify the zygote as something that's the moral equivalent of an actual entity. This is not the case for all people so some don't see it as murder.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    DrCereal said:
    @DrCereal abortion is murder. People in general have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, have your tubes removed, or don't have sex. It is really that simple.
    You say it's murder because you classify the zygote as something that's the moral equivalent of an actual entity. This is not the case for all people so some don't see it as murder.
    I'm not so sure that's the complete argument, in the majority of the United States there are very special laws in place that provide very special punishment for those who Kill a fetus.

    Now I'm not all about crushing your side here but I think we should consider both ends of the spectrum on this and so I present the following:

    What happens if you put an abortion pill in your Girlfriend's food while she's 3 weeks pregnant, her fetus dies and you get caught?  What happens if you rob a store with a gun and in the process you shoot a pregnant Woman and kill her fetus?

    There's no simple answer for these but in general, the overwhelming majority of the United States has very special punishments for people who kill the unborn child of a Woman.  So where is the line between legal and illegal?  Understanding the why and how is critical in determining whether or not something should or ought to be.  So follow my logic here:

    •  Is it illegal to kill a Woman's unborn child because she wants it to live?
    •  Is it legal if she wants the fetus to die?
    •  Is the desire of the Mother the determining factor in whether or not it's right (Justified) or wrong (Unjustified)?
    Logic Split

    If the desire of the Mother truly is the determining factor then logically                                                                                                   If the desire of the Mother isn't the determining factor then we must determine what other
    we must presume that the reasoning is simply because the fetus is a                                                                                                    factor could account for the reasoning that the act is unjustified.
    part of the Mother's body and the Mother has the ultimate authority in
    determining what she wants for her body.

    • If the fetus is truly just a part of the Mother's body of which she has ultimate authority of then how can Criminal Manslaughter charges be brought against someone who kills the fetus against the Mother's wishes?
    • Is the Mother's desire for life or death of the fetus the determining factor in which the decision that the fetus is a living Human Being and if so...how?
    • How is it that a Medical Professional can legally kill a fetus but if an average citizen does it then it's Manslaughter, Fetal Homicide or Infanticide?
    • Can the Humanity of a living creature be determined by the qualifications of the person killing it?  (You're not a Human Being if you're killed by a Doctor, you are a Human Being if killed by your Mother's Boyfriend)

    I feel that the bottom line is this:  You logically can't have it both ways.  
    DrCerealJamahoo
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 165 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    I'm not so sure that's the complete argument, in the majority of the United States there are very special laws in place that provide very special punishment for those who Kill a fetus.

    I'm not sure how this contradicts my point. My point was that people have different moral requirements for giving things rights.
    Some feel that an embryo has rights from the moment of inception while others do not.

    Sure, there are laws in the U.S. making it illegal to kill an embryo, but that doesn't mean every person morally agrees with those laws.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited July 23
    @DrCereal

    Again I'm not standing against you on this, however with the topic being whether or not it "Should" be legal, we are talking about what ought to be, not what is.  I'm not justifying any side by pointing out laws that exist, I'm pointing out the reasoning behind the laws and the reasoning that's being used for supporting Abortion as arbitrary at best...illogical and irrational at worst.  

    My logical process doesn't necessarily contradict your argument, it merely provides a perspective on your statement: "Some don't see it as murder".  

    Rationale, being the set of reasons or logical basis for a course of action or belief, is absolutely necessary in determining whether or not Abortion ought to be legal.  If the reasons and logical basis cannot withstand scrutiny, facts or examination by query then then the resulting determination is that Abortion being legal is irrational.

    Let me suggest more specifically, when you say "You say it's murder because you classify the zygote as something that's the moral equivalent of an actual entity", this may be the case for @KJVPrewrather however, that's merely a partial premise behind the conclusion that Abortion is murder or should be classified as such.

    I won't argue that @KJVPrewrather posed it sufficiently so I'll take the mantle here and pose the argument that Abortion ought to be classified as murder and therefor ought to be illegal because it cannot be justified in the vast majority of cases, attempts to justify abortion with reason don't stand up to mild scrutiny.

    Jamahoo
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 204 Pts
    edited July 23
    @Vaulk here is the legal argument that convinced me that the mothers desire for life or death is the determining factor. Actually it's not the desire for life or death that matters, it's the desire for bodily autonomy, and this is consistent with charging those that kill a mother who has a fetus inside her.

    The law states that no one can be forced to give their bodily resources to another person to keep them alive. So if someone is bleeding out and I'm the only person who can give them blood and ou is gaurented that would save them, I can legally refuse to give them my blood and this is not considered murder. These requires that both parties are considered human beings of course. So if you consider the fetus to be a full human being, which is the case in charging a third party with manslaughter, then it follows that the mother can refuse to give her bodily resources to the fetus. Now on the flip side you can't argue that the fetus isn't fully human, because then it wouldn't be murder for the woman to abort as it's not killing a human. So in a legal sense the mother can't choose life or death, but can choose bodily autonomy. To stay consistent in this line of reasoning, if the fetus can be taken out of the mother and survive without her bodily resources, then she can't decide to kill it.

    Edit: I want to add that in the case of the blood transfusion, I could agree to do it, begin the transfusion, even be 90% of the way through it, and still revoke my consent to it and it legally must stop.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited July 23
    @WordsMatter

    I see where you're coming from here and I respect your stance on this matter however, I'm going to apply scrutiny now to your rationale and we'll see if it holds up.

    1. You've made it clear that because a person cannot be legally forced to give their bodily resources to another person to keep them alive, this serves as justification for abortion in cases where the Mother has decided that she doesn't want to give her body's resources to another person.

    Issues
    a. Your comparison to the legality of halting blood transfusion is a noteworthy attempt at making an analogy however, there are an incredible amount of differences here between transfusing blood and providing internal life support for an unborn child.  It would be a much better analogy to use transplantation to provide clarification.  I'm going to split this evenly so you can see how it crosses over at each stage.

    Analogy: Someone needs your liver and you decide to donate it to them and so you have your liver removed and implanted inside the recipient.
    Reality: You engage in reproduction and gestate a fetus inside you as a result who takes up a portion of your body as a result of your actions.
    Analogy: You decide afterwards that despite your actions and decisions, you want your liver back from the body of the person who received it, it kills the recipient in the process.
    Reality: You decide that, despite your actions and choices, that you don't want a fetus growing inside you and so you have it crushed and suctioned out of you.

    For clarity, no, it is not legal to take back your liver after you make the decision to donate it.  Within the rationale of the analogy, I'm arguing that, likewise, abortion should not be legal after you make the decision to house it in your body. There are minority cases of abortion being necessary because of rape and so forth but, again, the vast majority made the conscientious decision to reproduce knowing the risk that's involved.

    2. Issues set aside, I'll now apply scrutiny to your rationale to see if it holds up.

    A. You've asserted  "it's the desire for bodily autonomy, and this is consistent with charging those that kill a mother who has a fetus inside her".     
         a. The issue here is that charging someone who kills a pregnant mother with additional punishment is irrelevant of the Mother's desire to keep or abort the fetus.  It's a crime whether the Mother was on her way to the Abortion clinic that day or wanted to keep the child...the punishment isn't swayed either way and so this is actually inconsistent with the rationale that humanity is determined by the Mother's desire for bodily autonomy.  This rationale does not stand up to scrutiny.

    B. You've asserted that justification for abortion being legal rests solidly upon the rationale behind a legal statute that prevents people from being forced to give their bodily resources to keep another person alive.
         a. The issue here is that this rationale acknowledges fully and operates on the presumption that the unborn child is a living person.  With this rationale in place...multiple other arguments fall apart and are discarded in favor of this argument because the argument now becomes "The fetus is a living person, but you can't force someone to keep another person alive with their bodily resources".
         b. The new issue (Along with many others) becomes one of attempting to reconcile a supposed law that protects you from being forced to keep another person alive with your bodily resources.  I can't say much about this alleged law as I've never seen or heard of this.  I'm going to ask for sources on this one as I'm having doubts that such a law exists and even if it did...I have the sneaking suspicion that it does not apply to pregnancy or is worded in such a way as to exclude it from being applied to something as specific as abortion.  In the case where the law actually did say something like this, it's likely applied, again, to transplants...meaning you can't be forced to give over your liver to someone else...but once you do make that choice and the liver's in their body...guess what?  The law doesn't make it so that you can demand it back.
    This rationale also doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    C. You've asserted "So in a legal sense the mother can't choose life or death, but can choose bodily autonomy". 
         a. What I'm understanding here is that your rationale in this matter is that it's not murder, it's just the Mother exercising her right to remain autonomous in regards to her body.  The issue here is that while a Woman does in fact have the right to keep her body autonomous...this logic stands solid but only BEFORE she becomes pregnant.  Again in rare cases of rape and other minority cases there's a distinct difference as most of those cases included the decision being take from the Mother.  In the vast majority of cases though, the choice to keep one's body autonomous is done by abstaining from Sex or taking preventative measures and understanding that there's always a risk.  Again we'd have to go back to the transplant analogy.

    I want my body to be autonomous ---> Don't reproduce then
    I want to keep my liver-------------------> Don't donate it then

    I decided to have sex and reproduce and now I'm pregnant--------------> Decision made, action taken
    I decided to have my liver cut out and implanted into another person--> Decision made, action taken

    Now I don't want to be pregnant ---> Too Late
    Now I want my liver back-------------> Too Late

    In summary, the provided rationale does not stand up to scrutiny and this was mild scrutiny by most standards.
    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoesephJoeseph 483 Pts
    I think Abortion should be legal and is so in many countries . The reasons women choose to have abortions are many and varied , women should have the right to excercise control over their own bodily autonomy .

    What gives me as a male as assumed right to tell a woman in this case what she may or may not do ? 
    with_all_humility
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    @Joeseph

    Being Male or Female is irrelevant as to what is morally right or wrong.  If we decided that your race, sex, creed, ethnicity or religious preference determined whether or not you could make a determination as to whether or not something was morally wrong then we'd all be guilty of prejudice and bigotry.  

    You've also based your argument on the presumption that the unborn child isn't a child at all, this is where the rub comes in.  I think Women should have the right to exercise control over their own bodily autonomy...which is why I support Women being able to choose whether or not to engage in reproduction.  After the choice is made to reproduce...there is no take-backsies.  Similar to donating a liver or kidney to someone who's dying...after it's taken out of you and implanted into the recipient...you can't take it back...the choice was made and executed.
    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoesephJoeseph 483 Pts


    Being Male or Female is irrelevant as to what is morally right or wrong. 

    I’m aware of this 

    If we decided that your race, sex, creed, ethnicity or religious preference determined whether or not you could make a determination as to whether or not something was morally wrong then we'd all be guilty of prejudice and bigotry.  

    It is women who have babies so the point you’re making is what ? 

    You've also based your argument on the presumption that the unborn child isn't a child at all, this is where the rub comes in

    Where exacly did I say that my argument never mentioned that .

    If it It is indeed a “ child” how many years in jail do American women get for killing a child ? 

     I think Women should have the right to exercise control over their own bodily autonomy...which is why I support
    Women being able to choose whether or not to engage in reproduction



    Yes 

    After the choice is made to reproduce...there is no take 

    Thats merely your opinion and has no bearing on what actually happens 


      Similar to donating a liver or kidney to someone who's dying...after it's taken out of you and implanted into the recipient...you can't take it back...the choice was made and executed.


    Well I’ll no it’s not similar , as a kidney doner signs an agreement to donate 

    with_all_humility
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited July 25
    Joeseph said:


    Being Male or Female is irrelevant as to what is morally right or wrong. 

    I’m aware of this 

    If we decided that your race, sex, creed, ethnicity or religious preference determined whether or not you could make a determination as to whether or not something was morally wrong then we'd all be guilty of prejudice and bigotry.  

    It is women who have babies so the point you’re making is what ? 

    You've also based your argument on the presumption that the unborn child isn't a child at all, this is where the rub comes in

    Where exacly did I say that my argument never mentioned that .

    If it It is indeed a “ child” how many years in jail do American women get for killing a child ? 

     I think Women should have the right to exercise control over their own bodily autonomy...which is why I support
    Women being able to choose whether or not to engage in reproduction



    Yes 

    After the choice is made to reproduce...there is no take 

    Thats merely your opinion and has no bearing on what actually happens 


      Similar to donating a liver or kidney to someone who's dying...after it's taken out of you and implanted into the recipient...you can't take it back...the choice was made and executed.


    Well I’ll no it’s not similar , as a kidney doner signs an agreement to donate 

    Alright then, starting from the top.

    1. It is women who have babies so the point you’re making is what ? 

    Answer: My point is in regards to your question "What gives me as a male as assumed right to tell a woman in this case what she may or may not do"? 

    This question infers directly that Males don't have the right to tell a Woman in the case of abortion what she may or may not do.  Since the topic of the debate is "SHOULD" abortion be legal, we are talking, as a result, about what is right and wrong.  Your inference here is that a Man doesn't have the right to tell a Woman what is right or wrong in regards to her choices because he's not a Woman and this inference is sexist to say the least.  Being a Male doesn't lessen the moral responsibility of a person to stand up for the rights of an unborn Child who cannot protect themselves from a Mother bent on killing them.

    2. You've also based your argument on the presumption that the unborn child isn't a child at all, this is where the rub comes in

    Where exacly did I say that my argument never mentioned that .

    Answer: "Women should have the right to excercise control over their own bodily autonomy".
    In order to use this line of logic, one must either totally ignore/deny the humanity of the Child or acknowledge that the Child is a living being.and that abortion is Murder.  Since your argument is for abortion then, while you didn't say it directly, one must presume that you're not advocating that Abortion is Murder.  So unless you're going to justify Abortion on the logic that the Mother's wishes are the determining factor of whether or not it's Murder (Which is illogical) then anyone who reads your above statement will be left to conclude from your words that you don't think it's murder because the fetus isn't a living Human being.

    3. If it It is indeed a “ child” how many years in jail do American women get for killing a child ? 
    Answer: Please see here.  It's already a crime to kill an unborn Child in the United States, for some reason though, it's only legal if the Mother wishes the Child dead and if it's done by a certified Medical Professional.  So essentially it's like euthanizing a Cat...it's illegal if you do it but you can pay a Vet to do it and it's fine...only the Vet won't do it at your request unless it's dying...which makes an interesting point about how Babies can be killed in the womb for the reasoning of "Oops" but you can't have your Cat euthanized unless the Vet determines that it's the best course of action and the Cat can't be treated.

    4. Thats merely your opinion and has no bearing on what actually happens 
    Response: This entire debate is about what "Should" be legal and therefor demands opinion.  We could discuss what currently IS the law but that's not the topic of the debate.  What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by pointing out that my statement is merely my opinion when I've presented it as my opinion?

    5. Well I’ll no it’s not similar , as a kidney doner signs an agreement to donate 
    Response: Actually this is where you're wrong.  The agreement is what makes the two similar, both are consensual otherwise they cannot legally happen.  The fact that the Donor signs an agreement doesn't differentiate the two instances substantially enough to make them incomparable.  A verbal agreement in the United States is just as legally binding as a written agreement and is absolutely enforceable in court.  So I have to ask...can you legally have sex with someone without their consent?  If not then the consensual act of reproduction requires an agreement too, albeit not in writing but just as binding.

    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoesephJoeseph 483 Pts


    1. It is women who have babies so the point you’re making is what ? 


    Answer: My point is in regards to your question "What gives me as a male as assumed right to tell a woman in this case what she may or may not do"? 


    You say ........This question infers directly that Males don't have the right to tell a Woman in the case of abortion what she may or may not do.  


    My reply ........Correct 


    You say .......Since the topic of the debate is "SHOULD" abortion be legal, we are talking, as a result, about what is right and wrong.  


    My reply .......Correct 


    You say ........Your inference here is that a Man doesn't have the right to tell a Woman what is right or wrong in regards to her choices because he's not a Woman and this inference is sexist to say the least.  


    My reply ........My exact point was no one has the the right to tell a woman what to do in this case , this obviously includes other women making my statement the complete opposite of sexist .


    Amusingly the accusation you level at me is the trait you’re guilty of ......

    sexist

    ˈsɛksɪst/

    adjective

    1 1.
    relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."his attitude to women is patronizing and sexist"




    You say .......Being a Male doesn't lessen the moral responsibility of a person to stand up for the rights of an unborn Child who cannot protect themselves from a Mother bent on killing them.


    My reply ......Do you approach neighbors and work colleagues who have had abortions and accuse them of child murder ?  If not ,why not ? 


    You say .......You've also based your argument on the presumption that the unborn child isn't a child at all, this is where the rub comes in. 


    Where exacly did I say that my argument never mentioned that .


    Answer: "Women should have the right to excercise control over their own bodily autonomy".

    In order to use this line of logic, one must either totally ignore/deny the humanity of the Child or acknowledge that the Child is a living being.and that abortion is Murder. 


    My reply ......A child as defined by the UN charter on human rights is an entity between the ages of birth and puberty 


    You say ...... Since your argument is for abortion then, 


    My reply .....My argument is not about what I’m for , why do you fail to acknowledge that ? 


    You say ......while you didn't say it directly, one must presume that you're not advocating that Abortion is Murder.  


    My reply ......Abortion is not murder 


    You say ......So unless you're going to justify Abortion on the logic that the Mother's wishes are the determining factor 


    My reply .......Yes that’s my belief 


    You say ........of whether or not it's Murder (Which is illogical) 


    My reply ......But you’re the one claiming it’s murder not I or indeed the mother 


    You say .........then anyone who reads your above statement will be left to conclude from your words that you don't think it's murder because the fetus isn't a living Human being.**


    My reply .......It’s a potential human being , and no it’s not murder and it’s not deemed so in law or by most 



    You say .......Answer: Please see here.  It's already a crime to kill an unborn Child in the United States, 


    My reply .....But abortion is legal in the US , is it not ? 


    You say ......for some reason though, it's only legal if the Mother wishes the Child dead and if it's done by a certified Medical Professional.  


    My reply .......So it is legal ? 


    You say .......So essentially it's like euthanizing a Cat...it's illegal if you do it but you can pay a Vet to do it and it's fine


    My reply .......But it’s legal to have an abortion and most would be I hope paying a professional to do it 


    You say .......only the Vet won't do it at your request unless it's dying...which makes an interesting point about how Babies can be killed in the womb for the reasoning of "Oops" but you can't have your Cat euthanized unless the Vet determines that it's the best course of action and the Cat can't be treated.


    My reply ........But it’s still legal in the U S and therefore not as you deem it “ murder “



    You say ......Thats merely your opinion and has no bearing on what actually happens 

    Response: This entire debate is about what "Should" be legal and therefor demands opinion.  We could discuss what currently IS the law but that's not the topic of the debate.  What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by pointing out that my statement is merely my opinion when I've presented it as my opinion?


    My reply .......Your opinion is fine once it doesn’t as in your case misrepresent what I’ve said into what you think I said 


    You say ....... Actually this is where you're wrong.  The agreement is what makes the two similar, both are consensual otherwise they cannot legally happen.  The fact that the Donor signs an agreement doesn't differentiate the two instances substantially enough to make them incomparable.  A verbal agreement in the United States is just as legally binding as a written agreement and is absolutely enforceable in court.  So I have to ask...can you legally have sex with someone without their consent?  If not then the consensual act of reproduction requires an agreement too, albeit not in writing but just as binding.



    My reply ......No it’s not just as binding otherwise and has no basis in law , also every women that ends up pregnant does not enter into a reproduction agreement 



    Apolgies for not using bold for some reason the  bold option keeps freezing when using my i pad 


  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    edited July 25
    So we're left at two issues here in regards to your response. 

    I made it very clear...and the OP made it very clear that this debate is about what "Should be" and not about what currently is.  So all of your arguments that include the statement "It's legal" are irrelevant.  In addition to this issue there's a clear issue of an anecdotal evidence fallacy where you've attempted to ask me personally if I approach neighbors and accuse them of murdering children.  To simply answer your question, I don't know anyone who's openly admitted to it and anyone that I do personally know has a clear and concise understanding of my stance on the subject as well as my justification for it...this however, is irrelevant and your attempt at drawing out my personal experience falls into a slew of fallacies.

    Next is the issue of you stating that you believe the Mother's decision to abort is the determining factor in whether or not it's murder but fail to acknowledge my provided legal source of law that clearly outlines fetal homicide as an existing law...meaning that it can't be the Mother's decision because there are laws that will land you in jail for killing a fetus no matter what the Mother thinks or wants.  So in regards to what currently is, this cannot be the determining factor because it's illogical and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Next, if my opinion is "Fine" as you've stated then you wouldn't have tried to discredit my statement about what happens after consensual reproduction.  I don't know how many ways I can explain what the topic of this debate is to you to make you understand that this is a discussion about what ought to be...not what currently is the law.  So I say that abortion ought to be considered Murder and then I provide logical reasoning for it to substantiate my conclusion...saying "Well that's merely your opinion" does nothing to discredit the statement and serves as and underhanded attempt at turning a debate into a reddit argument.

    Lastly, I provided a direct link to a credible source of information on how and why verbal agreements are very much credible in court and will be enforced in court...how is it that you've asserted that there's no basis in law without any evidence to support that statement?  I'm going to ask to see a source for this as I can't ignore the fact that this is totally and completely false, but benefit of the doubt to you...show me.

    Edit: Joeseph said:

    also every women that ends up pregnant does not enter into a reproduction agreement 

    Yes, they do...just not in the traditional form.  Reproduction, in regards to the current debate, starts with sexual intercourse and, if it's legal, then it must be consented to.  Do you need consent to legally have sex with a Woman?  If the answer is yes then all legal sexual intercourse is done so with sexual consent which is defined as an AGREEMENT which is formally and officially recognized in the court as such.  Now I'll concede that somewhere out there...somewhere in this huge Country there could be a legally consenting adult Female who has no idea that sexual intercourse is the act of reproduction, that said the vast majority of the United States population that is of consenting age understands fully that sexual intercourse is reproduction and that, despite efforts to prevent it, pregnancy is always a risk.  Any adult Female that gives sexual consent and therefor establishes an agreement to engage in the act of reproduction with the knowledge that the act itself may very well result in pregnancy...has in fact entered into a reproduction agreement.  If you disagree, show me why this is wrong.
    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoesephJoeseph 483 Pts

    @Vaulk

    You say ......I made it very clear...and the OP made it very clear that this debate is about what "Should be" and not about what currently is.  ......


    I’m well aware of this 


    You say .......So all of your arguments that include the statement "It's legal" are irrelevant.  


    They’re not , it is the case abortion is indeed legal we are giving our  opinions on what you and others want made what is legal , illegal 


    You say ........In addition to this issue there's a clear issue of an anecdotal evidence fallacy where you've attempted to ask me personally if I approach neighbors and accuse them of murdering children.  


    It’s a perfectly reasonable question , you did say it’s “ child murder “ which most people find a heinous crime , so why you’re getting upset about it is beyond me 


    You say ......To simply answer your question, I don't know anyone who's openly admitted to it and anyone that I do personally know has a clear and concise understanding of my stance on the subject as well as my justification for it...



    Oh right , so you would openly call such people child murderers then ? 


    You say .....this however, is irrelevant and your attempt at drawing out my personal experience falls into a slew of fallacies.


    It’s perfectly relevant , as you’re applying a term to a woman who aborts that is grossly unfair 


    You say .....Next is the issue of you stating that you believe the Mother's decision to abort is the determining factor in whether or not it's murder....


    No , I never said that as women who abort do not consider it murder 


     You say .....but fail to acknowledge my provided legal source of law that clearly outlines fetal homicide as an existing law...


    But you totally fail to acknowledge the bill you’re citing explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion , stating that the bill would not “ be construed to permit the prosecution “ of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of a pregnant woman or a person authorized by law-to act on her behalf “ 


    Why do you fail to mention this ? 


    Also did the O P just mean the situation in the U S when he posted this question ?


    You say .......meaning that it can't be the Mother's decision because there are laws that will land you in jail for killing a fetus no matter what the Mother thinks or wants.  


    Really ? How many people are doing time in the U S for abortion ?


    Is it now illegal ?



    You say .....So in regards to what currently is, this cannot be the determining factor because it's illogical and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



    I’m afraid for you it does, that’s why it’s law 


    You say....... Next, if my opinion is "Fine" as you've stated then you wouldn't have tried to discredit my statement about what happens after consensual reproduction.  


    It’s called debate , now it’s turned to me somehow “ discrediting you ???


    You say ......I don't know how many ways I can explain what the topic of this debate is to you to make you understand that this is a discussion about what ought to be...not what currently is the law.  .....


    I know , I’m making the case for ought is that not clear ?


    You say .....So I say that abortion ought to be considered Murder and then I provide logical reasoning for it to substantiate my conclusion



    I’ve addressed and countered your arguments 


    ...you say ......”Well that's merely your opinion" does nothing to discredit the statement and serves as and underhanded attempt at turning a debate into a reddit argument.


    Who’s discrediting ? I’m challenging your assertions and it’s pretty childish to call my counters underhanded 


    You say .....Lastly, I provided a direct link to a credible source of information on how and why verbal agreements are very much credible in court and will be enforced in court...


    Really ? Credible the same way as your piece citing the law ?


    You say.......how is it that you've asserted that there's no basis in law without any evidence to support that statement?  I'm going to ask to see a source for this as I can't ignore the fact that this is totally and completely false, but benefit of the doubt to you...show me.


    Unfortunately I have to correct you yet again ......


    Since Roe v. Wade, some states in the United States have attempted to enact laws requiring spousal consent. All of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional, spousal consent in the 1976 decision Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and spousal awareness in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey.



    You say ......Edit: Joeseph said:

    also every women that ends up pregnant does not enter into a reproduction agreement 

    Yes, they do...just not in the traditional form.  Reproduction, in regards to the current debate, starts with sexual intercourse and, if it's legal, then it must be consented to.  


    You’re incorrect , read above 


    You say .....Do you need consent to legally have sex with a Woman?  If the answer is yes then all legal sexual intercourse is done so with sexual consent which is defined as an AGREEMENT which is formally and officially recognized in the court as such.  


    Read above 


    You say .....Now I'll concede that somewhere out there...somewhere in this huge Country there could be a legally consenting adult Female who has no idea that sexual intercourse is the act of reproduction, that said the vast majority of the United States population that is of consenting age understands fully that sexual intercourse is reproduction and that, despite efforts to prevent it, pregnancy is always a risk.  Any adult Female that gives sexual consent and therefor establishes an agreement to engage in the act of reproduction with the knowledge that the act itself may very well result in pregnancy...has in fact entered into a reproduction agreement.  .....


    Nonsense 


    You say .......If you disagree, show me why this is wrong.


    I just have , maybe you shouldn’t make up stuff regards American law you know very little about 

  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    I can't reference your username so I'll just leave it at: Jospeh.

    You've ignored the Debating method on several occasions and at this point I'm going to respectfully decline to continue further as this is degrading.  I appreciate your attempts at debate and learned a great deal from you during the back and forth.  Despite not understanding your premise I still respect your conclusion and wish you the best of luck in future debates.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • JoesephJoeseph 483 Pts
    @Vaulk


    My user name is .......Joeseph
    Feared by many, rumoured he is so hard he shaves with a blowtorch and is able to move mountains and has acquired the nickname The Mountain.......It’s a little joke with a history 


    I dont believe I have done any such thing as I’ve addressed each of your points and asked valid questions regarding them , you quoted what you claimed was Americans law leaving out the most important part regarding abortion, you then make another  statement regarding verbal agreements but neglected to how it impacted on parental issues and was void in the situation I referenced .

    I will also leave it at that , I’ve nothing against you and I actually enjoyed the exchange and didn’t find it degrading , it’s only a debate and no use squabbling over , have a good day
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 204 Pts
    edited August 2
    @Vaulk you can't make the comparison between the liver and pregnancy. In the case of giving the liver once the procedure is done then it's over. The recipient no longer needs anything of yours to survive. You have provided everything needed. Even in a transfusion if you decide halfway through to stop they don't try to give you the blood that has already been transfused back. It's the same with a fetus. The mother isn't asking for the resources she previously gave back, she is asking to not be forced to give future resources up. This isn't someone who had finished with the liver transplant asking to reverse it, it's someone in the middle of a transplant asking to stop.

    Growing a baby would be comparable to a very long liver transplant in which you transfer a tiny piece of liver, maybe even molecule, at a time into the recipient. You can't stop the procedure at any molecule you'd like. You won't get there ones you have given back, but you also don't have to to give anymore up. If the recipient can live with what they received so far, they have the right to live, if they can't then the would be done can't be held accountable legally.
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    Fair point that the two aren't the same, that doesn't make them incomparable.  The similarities between the two within the context of the argument are what's important here, not that there are differences that make these two instances different from one another.

    Even assuming that the two were somehow incomparable because of an arbitrary requirement that the two things being compared be exactly the same in every way...this still doesn't negate in any way that the killing of a fetus in the case where the Mother willingly took part in the act of sexual reproduction can't be justified with legitimate rationale.  If we one day accepted premises based on emotions then maybe abortion could be justified.  
    John_C_87
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt to a felony crime the debate becomes does the legislation project the self-incrimination of the admission public as a united State or not. It is believed that Pregnancy abortion is a lie and is used to describe Female specific Amputation as this is not an admission of guilt to crime.

    The United State shared by all woman is an admission of guilt publicly to a felony crime. By all woman this includes minors as some girls, young woman this issue address are not of voting age. Which raises an even higher question to its merit as legislation for the general warfare of a nation.

  • Arguing the legality of abortion as a lie that has been put in writing on official documents while under oath. The word abort means to pause/stop on an officially started process, all those who use the word abort understand that the official beginning has taken place without question.  With a very limited exception made by the use on pregnancy of woman. The beginning of life is in question from the start of the medial use of the witness account of pregnancy abortion. The word established with pregnancy outside the United States is used in an improper way.

    The problem is medicine, science, and people all have a standard use that is shared with the rest of the world adding another just became a double standard that hurt woman. Life begins independent as an egg or sperm and for life to continue the two must be united this can be naturally, or unnaturally. The problem is this united state describes that murder taking place as long as the man and woman do not procreate, or have sexual intercourse on the side of a united state.

    Addressing the lie. We face two issues of independence for a woman here. Her right to forgive her own life for that of a child’s as her baby, this is by powers of transfer, or by verbal consent, and the right to abort the natural process of death which continual takes place inside both her body, and the male body. Again a single united state. The abortion takes place on the natural process of death as it is only a pause/stop. Unless she is medically fixed to no longer be fertile and child bearing. These are really just one complex issue together. The second issue is brought into focus when a united state is created by the natural process of reproduction, as it is noted that male sperm die at a rate of 1.500 per/second, and a woman’s egg 1 per/28 days, that even with the process of sexual intercourse or artificial insemination many of these human lives are intentional killed as sacrifice to the natural order.

    I will leave you with these simple question in unscientific form.

     Do you believe a dead sperm can fertilize a living human egg?

    Does medicine use dead sperm to fertilize a living human egg?

    Do you believe a living sperm can fertilized a dead human egg?

    Do medicine believe a living sperm can fertilize a dead human egg?

    The basic answers mean that medicine and people may both know were human life begins.

  • John_C_87 said:

    Arguing the legality of abortion as a lie that has been put in writing on official documents while under oath. The word abort means to pause/stop on an officially started process, all those who use the word abort understand that the official beginning has taken place without question.  With a very limited exception made by the use on pregnancy of woman. The beginning of life is in question from the start of the medial use of the witness account of pregnancy abortion. The word established with pregnancy outside the United States is used in an improper way.

    The problem is medicine, science, and people all have a standard use that is shared with the rest of the world adding another just became a double standard that hurt woman. Life begins independent as an egg or sperm and for life to continue the two must be united this can be naturally, or unnaturally. The problem is this united state describes that murder taking place as long as the man and woman do not procreate, or have sexual intercourse on the side of a united state.

    Addressing the lie. We face two issues of independence for a woman here. Her right to forgive her own life for that of a child’s as her baby, this is by powers of transfer, or by verbal consent, and the right to abort the natural process of death which continual takes place inside both her body, and the male body. Again a single united state. The abortion takes place on the natural process of death as it is only a pause/stop. Unless she is medically fixed to no longer be fertile and child bearing. These are really just one complex issue together. The second issue is brought into focus when a united state is created by the natural process of reproduction, as it is noted that male sperm die at a rate of 1.500 per/second, and a woman’s egg 1 per/28 days, that even with the process of sexual intercourse or artificial insemination many of these human lives are intentional killed as sacrifice to the natural order.

    I will leave you with these simple question in unscientific form.

     Do you believe a dead sperm can fertilize a living human egg?

    Does medicine use dead sperm to fertilize a living human egg?

    Do you believe a living sperm can fertilized a dead human egg?

    Do medicine believe a living sperm can fertilize a dead human egg?

    The basic answers mean that medicine and people may both know were human life begins.

    yes a dead sperm can fertilize an egg, you only need the genetic material inside, this has already been done with otherwise "sterile" males, look it up

    a dead eggs can not be fertilized afaik

    a sperm or egg by themselves do not have the potential to be anything else, when fertilized that changes things.  neither of them, by themselves can be called a human life.

    what you have to ask is when does human life begin and how cautious should we be.  If you are driving on a dark road and you think there might be a person in the road but aren't sure, you'd slow down right?  You don't know if it actually is a human life but you'd be careful just in case, true?  Why is this issue different then?


    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals

  • yes a dead sperm can fertilize an egg, you only need the genetic material inside, this has already been done with otherwise "sterile" males, look it up
      

    So there is one conditional yes?


    a dead eggs can not be fertilized afaik

    a sperm or egg by themselves do not have the potential to be anything else, when fertilized that changes things.  neither of them, by themselves can be called a human life.

    The length of life is not what is in debate only what is alive and what is dead. So you are saying dead sperm are used by science to artificially inseminate woman? Science takes dead sperm as donation? What can be done and what is done in general practice are not the same thing and only one sets the publicly used standard. What I am saying is I see a standard set and it is in use.


    what you have to ask is when does human life begin and how cautious should we be.  If you are driving on a dark road and you think there might be a person in the road but aren't sure, you'd slow down right?  You don't know if it actually is a human life but you'd be careful just in case, true?  Why is this issue different then?

    I do not need to ask when life starts I have been instructed by medical science. The only right a woman has in regard to abortion is that a woman aborts death of the egg upon the act of sexual intercourse and fertilization. For some odd reason what the medical practice and malpractice insurance did not address is the conflict of interest in the violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

    Also remember all I am doing is addressing abortion as a lie. I am a witness and I know when I commit perjury others simply may not care they directed me. It is up to those who direct the perjury to provide a common defense we both can share publicly, if it is their desire I share a civil purpose. As a male murders about 1,500 sperm every time they have sex as all sperm are alive then, all die if an egg is not fertilized. Like I said the argument of a woman's constitutional right to Gender specific Amputation is designed to stay away from this and other fact. With the use of a lie call Pregnancy Abortion. The truth is a pregnancy cannot be aborted it becomes an admission of guilt to a felony crime. And a woman does not need an pregnancy abortion she is allowed to honor the Hypocritic oath, even if the medical doctor or Insurance company do not and request a female specific amputation.

    Two things to understand perjury is a crime that can be addressed when it is discovered.

    The alibi that is used in one crime can create the reasons for a second unnoticed crime to be brought to light. The argument here is reversed instead of a witness taking part in a crime of the admitter, it is the person making the admission who is witness to the confession of the crime Perjury they help create, as this argument is made on office documents.




  • Again there is no question of when life begins ever it is a point made as a double standard, only the question of states of life’s independence is questioned. The egg needs the sperm, the sperm needs the egg, and they are at some point co-dependent for an extension of life by union. Keep in mind even a union of egg and sperm itself does not insure life from death.


  • John_C_87 said:

    yes a dead sperm can fertilize an egg, you only need the genetic material inside, this has already been done with otherwise "sterile" males, look it up
      

    So there is one conditional yes?


    a dead eggs can not be fertilized afaik

    a sperm or egg by themselves do not have the potential to be anything else, when fertilized that changes things.  neither of them, by themselves can be called a human life.

    The length of life is not what is in debate only what is alive and what is dead. So you are saying dead sperm are used by science to artificially inseminate woman? Science takes dead sperm as donation? What can be done and what is done in general practice are not the same thing and only one sets the publicly used standard. What I am saying is I see a standard set and it is in use.


    what you have to ask is when does human life begin and how cautious should we be.  If you are driving on a dark road and you think there might be a person in the road but aren't sure, you'd slow down right?  You don't know if it actually is a human life but you'd be careful just in case, true?  Why is this issue different then?

    I do not need to ask when life starts I have been instructed by medical science. The only right a woman has in regard to abortion is that a woman aborts death of the egg upon the act of sexual intercourse and fertilization. For some odd reason what the medical practice and malpractice insurance did not address is the conflict of interest in the violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

    Also remember all I am doing is addressing abortion as a lie. I am a witness and I know when I commit perjury others simply may not care they directed me. It is up to those who direct the perjury to provide a common defense we both can share publicly, if it is their desire I share a civil purpose. As a male murders about 1,500 sperm every time they have sex as all sperm are alive then, all die if an egg is not fertilized. Like I said the argument of a woman's constitutional right to Gender specific Amputation is designed to stay away from this and other fact. With the use of a lie call Pregnancy Abortion. The truth is a pregnancy cannot be aborted it becomes an admission of guilt to a felony crime. And a woman does not need an pregnancy abortion she is allowed to honor the Hypocritic oath, even if the medical doctor or Insurance company do not and request a female specific amputation.

    Two things to understand perjury is a crime that can be addressed when it is discovered.

    The alibi that is used in one crime can create the reasons for a second unnoticed crime to be brought to light. The argument here is reversed instead of a witness taking part in a crime of the admitter, it is the person making the admission who is witness to the confession of the crime Perjury they help create, as this argument is made on office documents.




    look it up for yourself since you don't believe, yes genetic material has been extracted from sperm and used to fertilize a woman.
    I agree there is a huge conflict of interest with the Hippocratic oath imo
    yes you don't have to admit to a crime, which is why it was ruled as a right to privacy.  How do they explain away the dead babies as a result of an abortion?  The have to dispose of the remains and it all must be documented right?  Or is this the lie you are talking about?
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • I believe that women who want to abort their children should be given the death penalty.
    Theocrat
  • “Look it up if yourself since you don’t believe genetic material has been extracted from dead sperm and used to fertilize a woman.”

    There is no question on genetic material extracted on dead sperm but all that would really do is showing a reason for conflict of interest by science to maintain a double standard of the definition of life publicly. It simple is one conditional yes, with one no to four questions asked, with just a medical limit on the yes as its condition set by training, the use of dead sperm cannot be perform socially, and has a time limited time frame? This special process of yes requires the extraction of genetic material which can be describe as an added sexual process to a form of reproduction in a basic principle.

    “I agree there is a huge conflict of interest with the Hippocratic Oath i.m.o.” (In your opinion) or (literal, in my opinion)

    The violation of the Hippocratic Oath is not your opinion it is fact, and the honesty is appreciated, so thank you. Again the efforts made here are to defend the United States Constitution not undermine authority set by Supreme Court and its rulings. A united State Constitutional principle may describe Female specific amputation as within the public guide lines of Hypocrisy?

    “They have to dispose of the remains and it all must be documented right?  Or is this the lie you are talking about?”

    There is an effort made to avoid medical waste disposal as the basic principle of this grievance. The lie is that a woman can even perform an order of pregnancy abortion by principle. She would need to confirm that the pause/stop that is officially planed can be reinstated after the abort has been undertaken and is in place. A woman is simply consenting to female specific amputation, or gender specific amputation.

    The abortion a woman performs as it is related to pregnancy comes in the way of the Pausing/stop of menstruation and ovulation as this is all set by her ability alone as a united state with all woman. It is the woman who can reinstate the menstruation and ovulation after pregnancy, simply continue to have children, or seek medical alteration or termination to the process entirely. There is no need for assistance form a state licensed professional who would be violating Hippocratic Oath.

  • Sonofason, just a question. When it is proven the only thing a woman aborted is menstruation she should still be placed under threat of Capital Punishment?

    And, yes this was question to perform a constitutional separation because you are adding two controversies on top of one act of public governing. Keep in mind any person can, or has aborted human life in relationship to the question of ignoring life’s self-value. And do in fact require punishment to sometime drastic measures.


  • John_C_87 said:

    “Look it up if yourself since you don’t believe genetic material has been extracted from dead sperm and used to fertilize a woman.”

    There is no question on genetic material extracted on dead sperm but all that would really do is showing a reason for conflict of interest by science to maintain a double standard of the definition of life publicly. It simple is one conditional yes, with one no to four questions asked, with just a medical limit on the yes as its condition set by training, the use of dead sperm cannot be perform socially, and has a time limited time frame? This special process of yes requires the extraction of genetic material which can be describe as an added sexual process to a form of reproduction in a basic principle.

    “I agree there is a huge conflict of interest with the Hippocratic Oath i.m.o.” (In your opinion) or (literal, in my opinion)

    The violation of the Hippocratic Oath is not your opinion it is fact, and the honesty is appreciated, so thank you. Again the efforts made here are to defend the United States Constitution not undermine authority set by Supreme Court and its rulings. A united State Constitutional principle may describe Female specific amputation as within the public guide lines of Hypocrisy?

    “They have to dispose of the remains and it all must be documented right?  Or is this the lie you are talking about?”

    There is an effort made to avoid medical waste disposal as the basic principle of this grievance. The lie is that a woman can even perform an order of pregnancy abortion by principle. She would need to confirm that the pause/stop that is officially planed can be reinstated after the abort has been undertaken and is in place. A woman is simply consenting to female specific amputation, or gender specific amputation.

    The abortion a woman performs as it is related to pregnancy comes in the way of the Pausing/stop of menstruation and ovulation as this is all set by her ability alone as a united state with all woman. It is the woman who can reinstate the menstruation and ovulation after pregnancy, simply continue to have children, or seek medical alteration or termination to the process entirely. There is no need for assistance form a state licensed professional who would be violating Hippocratic Oath.

    so to put it simply just let nature take it's course as the saying goes?
    but back to the sperm and egg, both contain the genetic material of the individual person, once the egg is fertilized it has genetic material from both the male and female, making it unique unto itself.  And although it's attached to the female this makes it a separate thing from the female as it has been created rather than grown and doesn't just contain her genetic material exclusively.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  •  

    “So to put it simply just let nature take its course.”

    Not at all what is being said is the Hippocratic Oath did not have to be broken the use of Female specific amputation is a united state.

    “The sperm and egg both contain genetic material of the individual person, once the egg is fertilized it has genetic material from both the male and female, making it unique unto itself.”

    To simplify the other point made, something is said to be alive, and by science becomes more alive. Double standard. Science declares the egg alive, then declares the living egg plus sperm more alive. Sounds silly without all the distraction of detail doesn’t it?

    Meanwhile to place the understanding of life in question is to set a dead point. By questioning the start of human life the word abort becomes a lie, as the abort process must have an official start to coincide with the pause/stop.


  • Now the obligation is to move to a United States Constitutional common defense stating all woman as created equal.  They appear to be having a problem doing this for themselves and in defending the United States Constitution I have an obligation to explain what is seen. A man’s sperm is alive and it is not just the woman’s egg that becomes alive.

     The woman by nature only produces generally one egg which shares a united state between man’s sperm in reproduction of death by basic principle and precedent. When legally arguing accusation made on Gender specific amputation a man has intercourse knowing that his sperm is living, and while in the process of intercourse most will be lost, one might be saved. The woman does not pick which one is to be saved, however the one that does continue is no more alive than those that do not, man and woman conspire equally to the deaths which places her in a unique legal position to flere’ . Besides medical issues the woman by military standard is stating she only reserve united state right for her one death. And if held accountable the burden should be shared equally. The united state of conception, fertilization, D.N.A. and fetus is not birth and never was.


  • @John_C_87
    You give me more credit than I deserve.  I said, "women who want to abort their children should be given the death penalty."
    I not only want to see the women who abort innocent unborn children given the death penalty.  I want the women who want to abort their children to be given the death penalty.  In fact, if it was up to me; and you should thank God it is not up to me; I would advocate that any person who is an advocate of abortion should be given the death penalty.  And this of course should lend itself to the notion that perhaps I deserve to die as well.  If you agree...then so do you.
  • Sonofason said:
    @John_C_87
    You give me more credit than I deserve.  I said, "women who want to abort their children should be given the death penalty."
    I not only want to see the women who abort innocent unborn children given the death penalty.  I want the women who want to abort their children to be given the death penalty.  In fact, if it was up to me; and you should thank God it is not up to me; I would advocate that any person who is an advocate of abortion should be given the death penalty.  And this of course should lend itself to the notion that perhaps I deserve to die as well.  If you agree...then so do you.

    Well Sonofason some might describe what you are saying as sounding controversial, the principle any admission of guilt makes to the public including pregnancy abortion is the deliberate intention to officially stop life. This makes life hard to remove from the focal point of precedent set by other violent crimes.

    The problem is abort is used out of it context and should not be the wording to describe a medical process it is used to describe a postponement of medical process after it has started.  The surgery was aborted till, or the surgery was aborted then terminated. To get to the point do you feel Female Specific Amputation should be a Capital offence?


  • @John_C_87
    you keep saying  "Female Specific Amputation"

    am·pu·ta·tion
    ˌampyəˈtāSH(ə)n/
    noun         the action of surgically cutting off a limb.
    or 
    Amputation: Removal of part or all of a body part that is enclosed by skin.
    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12537

    50% of the chromosomes what is being killed are not hers, and of the total only about 40% of hers will actually be expressed, where as things that are amputated are 100% that person's dna material.  Using the term in question downplays what is actually happening and what it actually is.
    there's a reason pregnant women are considered immuno compromised, you can call it a parasite or whatever, but to try and claim it's no different than any other part of her body is completely wrong based on the genetics alone.

    Jamahoo
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • The issue we are discussing is not the same and this is the reason for any confusion. The United State that is shared with the title abortion is a public admission of guilt to a felony crime. There is no reason to address the action of some woman with the actions of all woman, unless that United State can in fact be established to all woman. This is where woman have dropped the independence ball.

    All woman are created equal by their creator. This can mean the one who unites them in single state. The basic principle in question to all woman is not murder it is removal. Saying all woman must automatically admit guilt to crime shares a united-state which directs self-incrimination publicly. Ever here the expression to wrongs do not make a right?

    When the Title of abortion is used in legislation the two wrongs are made publicly, one is admission of murder, this might be debated forever and has a limited threat. The second is a hidden greater threat set on the voter as restriction of liberty, this is by use of the same admission of guilt to the murder hidden in the abuse of wording. Abort.

    Woman intentionally, or unintentionally have set up a form of global which hunt. The only problem with Female specific Amputation is no admission of guilt that is shared by all woman. It is nothing more than what we know at the time, a process of removal. Fact.

    The minority of chromosomes that survive and live only because of her are 100% not secure by their own liberty to independence. There is not one child ever call parasite by a united state set by a female specific amputation, while sperm and egg have both  been 100% proven living prior to any union by people, including Medicine or Science.

  • The word abortion as a United State creating all woman as equal.

    When a woman being capable of child birth, by choice has a relationship which results in fertilization of the egg produced by nature, addressed by genetics to her, she by her powers of nature has performed an abortion of ovulation.

    This is an abortion the public can prove as United State.


  • John_C_87 said:

    The word abortion as a United State creating all woman as equal.

    When a woman being capable of child birth, by choice has a relationship which results in fertilization of the egg produced by nature, addressed by genetics to her, she by her powers of nature has performed an abortion of ovulation.

    This is an abortion the public can prove as United State.


    abort
    bring to a premature end because of a problem or fault.

    The abortion in context with killing a fertilized egg regardless of development state is 100% accurate by definition.  Premature end of living cells, fertilized egg, baby call it whatever you like, that doesn't change the definition.
    This also greatly differs from amputation which is incorrect on a multitude of levels based on medical definitions already provided.

    Premature end because of whatever reason is a United State in that actions are taken to cause the action and end result.  The desired end result of an abortion is the same, removal of living cells, fertilized egg, baby call it whatever you like, for whatever reason that is given.  The end result is a Untied State that what is removed is killed and dies, equal state, equal outcome.
    All aborted  living cells, fertilized egg, baby call it whatever you like, are United State in that they are all dead which makes them equal.
    Women who have abortions are Untied State in that  living cells, fertilized egg, baby call it whatever you like that are aborted are always killed and die making them equal outcomes.

    At best you can call it a foreign body due to the foreign dna and her immune system self suppresses to avoid self aborting (though this is not the case for women who frequently miscarriage)  So to claim it's part of her body is also incorrect as her own body identifies it as something foreign.  Generally it's is an involuntary immuno suppression to prevent abortion.  Which means the body actually wants the pregnancy naturally, which is evident by the body's suppression of it's own immune system.  Medicine has determine that the inability to auto suppress is an abnormal state and that the ability to conceive and birth a child is the natural United State.

    While the mother is needed to house and nourish, that does not make it 100% part of her body because of the reasons stated, therefore amputation is incorrectly used and abortion is correct.  The purpose of abortion on this topic is death, of what can be debated but not the desired end result.

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • just to be clear I'm not attributing motive or legality, just stating facts of what actually is.  There's too much glossing over, word misuse to justify and soften what the reality actually is.  And that's dishonest.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • Okay Applesauce I am going to start by saying I completely agree with what you said. It is all correct with no objection by me. So without the admission of criminal guilt made with the use of abortion, which means we officially stop a process which has been documented to have officially been started. I understand that start is first officially documented by medicine at the introduction of egg from the ovary. How are you going to prove that the Female Specific Amputation is in fact the admission of guilt everyone has been so accustom, Pregnancy Abortion? Why do you continue to believe it is Pregnancy abortion and not female specific amputation?

    To my knowledge I have been instructed that life starts when the egg is released from the woman’s ovary. Are you asking that I presume a double standard of life?  Life officially starts twice? I will be glad to debate death of a baby as the United State both woman and men share first. As this is the first official documentation of when life begins.

    There is a lot of things said to avoid the basic explanation of double standard. For all intent the egg fertilization is the official abortion made on the state of death that is shared by both men and woman in relationship to reproduction. As it is this process which the woman stops and still holds the authority to allow the process to continue. Aborting an event must have the capability to be officially stopped, and then officially terminated or allowed to restart. Do you understand a lie to be something that is believable or something that is found to be untrue after careful consideration? 

    I'm not saying abortion because I do not get a straight answer to the question is pregnancy abortion an admission of guilt? The common defense of why it is believed to be is it comes with a public alibi when made. 

  • Correct the gap between dishonesty and honesty starts by addressing all Female Specific Amputation, or Gender specific Amputation as abortion.

    Applesauce I am not glossing over words as clear change of public description is being made for one reason. A united State has been created which compromises a democratic right to vote against the general welfare of society by the use of improper wording. As a way to direct a witness into an organized crime. The principle of fraud is allowing a voter to make a vote at the poll then a vote may be disqualified legally on technicality with or without notification at any time. Not that it has been done the threat of the possibility exist due to legislation in other areas of politics.

    Abort is describing an admission of guilt to the crime of murder. This is simply not the united State shared by all woman in regards to loss of child under medical condition. Plain and simple. The united state used to regulate should be of legal principle otherwise the process is nothing more than organized crime.

    Using United State constitution to argue a historical democratic political wrong showing as a lack of ability to execute an oath of office is a grievance. It is not accusation of crime, it is the exposing of a crime frauds are found or discovered. No crime is ever insured to be always be intentional by their creator.

  • @John_C_87
    very simple really, when a woman has had sex, doesn't get her period what test does she take?  I don't think there's an admission of guilt.  As I have discussed the occurrence of an abortion has evidence that it has occurred.  If abortion is illegal, then how does planned parent hood advertise this service, or any doctors who do it as well?  Then there's the remains which must be documented and disposed of.  Elective abortion is a diagnosis code 2018 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code Z33.2  Encounter for elective termination of pregnancycan you make an appointment for an elective murder or suicide or any other criminal action?  Killing of the cells, baby whatever is not illegal, there is no crime to admit to.  If it is a crime what would it be?  We ignore and don't enforce whatever laws are being broken.
    "Abort is describing an admission of guilt to the crime of murder. "  If this is true then anyone offering services to "murder" should be arrested, which is consistent when attempting to hire someone to commit murder.  having undercover officers go into planned parent hoods would be easy and when the service is offered arrests should be made and prosecuted.  The ability to advertise and carry out crime, sounds like organized crime, sanctioned by the government.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • “Very simply really, when a woman has had sex, doesn’t get her period what test does she take?”

    Other than the public legal knowledge test of law given by the self-incrimination of admission of guilt to felony murder, I was unaware there was any other test required for her to take.

    “I do not think there’s an admission of guilt.”

    You are not sure? You understood it well enough to describe the collection of human remains as evidence in your reply. Are you aware of that fact? Telling me to defend an admission of guilt because you do not acknowledge the admission openly in the public is leading. "I do not think" is leading. Where are we going? Code 2018 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code Z33.2 Elective Termination of pregnancy is describing a form of Female Specific Amputation, it is describing a form of Gender Specific Amputation, and it is explaining a surgical process which can be aborted. A female Specific Amputation can be aborted not a woman’s pregnancy. She can abort the menstruation cycle by becoming pregnant willingly, and unwillingly, a male surgeon could help with that abortion.

    At this point I would need to hear a description by you telling how a woman and surgeon together might be able to stop/pause an official pregnancy by terminating it, then officially restart that particular pregnancy at a later date after termination. Can you provide an explanation for this to me? If not, I have every right to believe you are telling a official lie using the word abortion.

  • “Any person who describes publicly they are going to approve, or take part in officially stopping the maturing, the growth, or lengthened process of a living human may not be committing murder, yet! But, are in fact admitting guilt of describing the process of officially bring life to an end. They are taking charge over nature in the matter of death by the words that are chosen true or not.”

    When a person makes plans that are to be carried out with the purpose of official ending of a life. It is an admission of guilt before, or after the plans take effect. The addition has a hidden conflict here that is not restricted by governing I will discuss later more clearly. What also is now in question is the overall mental health, this includes a person’s competency who made these plan, and of for those who carried out the plans, if they are not the same person. Again this is precedent and not opinion.

    Keep in mind the confessing murders who make the admission of guilt say abortion not female specific amputation tell us  an alibi for the crime, the provide an explanation on how they had hidden the body from the public, and they have no clue what a admission of guilt really is. The public likely-hood of marriage creates a legal union between man and woman which allows a witness to describe an impartial common defense. One outside the more common state of self-defense.

    As this type union, Likely-hood is like no other outside society as it aborts death by natural selection of death. 


  • According to the principle of natural law, which the Founding Fathers based the system on, every person has an irrevocable right for their property, including their body. Simply speaking, everything that is within person's body is as much of their property as their house, their car or their arm. Nobody can prevent them from amputating their arm, and just as well nobody can prevent them from aborting their fetus.

    How "conscious" the fetus is really is irrelevant in the matter from this perspective. Even if the fetus is much more intelligent than the host, it does not change the principle of ownership. 

    I expect that in the distant future we will face much more interesting ideological problems, than this primitive question. Imagine the time when AIs are common, and my mind is merged with a mind of an AI. Then I decide to destroy the AI part, leaving only my mind. Do I have the right to do so, given that it will kill off the AI, a fully developed intelligent person? Strictly speaking, the AI will just as well own my body as my own brain, so our natural rights will clash. 
    I think this is a much more interesting question, than the one asking "Should I be able to destroy a parasite feeding on my body that has an intelligence no higher than a virus or a microbe?".
  • MayCaesar all rights are revocable by their united State constitution, as this States of Constitution is the way a shared bill of right is derived from preamble, which is an Amendment made by principle and legal precedent on an earlier preamble of a decoration of Independence made from a Parliamentary law, and judicial rule.

    Where Pregnancy Abortion cannot be abolished as it is an admission of guilt to a crime, and all people, all woman have an inalienable Constitutional right to admit guilt as a united state. It does not have to be believe or left to be unregulated when it effect the common defense of the general welfare of a society. As a united State of admission of guilt.

    The person who might make the admission of guilt is not in control of the public address of the admission. The confession may not even be the crime which is the focus of investigation that becomes the point of grievance of legality when it is placed in public service for use.

    In the case of pregnancy abortion the public is not being informed of the admission of guilt that is being described may in fact effect at some time the outcome of a person right to legally vote as a citizen of their nation. Meaning this is not just a American or one Nation problem.

  • @John_C_87

    I provided you with definitions and codes.  You can abort something without the ability to resume it.  Regardless, the laws and planned parent hood use this word in the context for terminating a pregnancy.  No one uses with any regularity, legality or definition "female specific amputation"  There are abortion limits based on the age of the baby in some states which  is law.  After a certain number of weeks it is illegal.
    Can you provide any proof that abortion is illegal aside from what is already specified by law?  If a state has a limit based on number of weeks of the baby.  If a woman has an abortion prior to that limit there's no crime to admit to.  Unless you can provide some law that says otherwise.  
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • VaulkVaulk 567 Pts
    My argument against Abortion is simply that the laws that currently protect it as an available option for Women are built on hypocrisy, they make no sense.  

    If a Woman can choose what happens with her body and subsequently abortions are legal...then how does the law criminalize infanticide?

    If Jane Doe gets pregnant from consensual intercourse and two weeks later her boyfriend slips an abortion pill into her drink causing the pregnancy to be terminated...the boyfriend has committed a crime.  In FACT, it doesn't matter in the least what the Woman thinks or even if she WANTED the baby gone...it's classified as infanticide.  So if "It's my body" is legitimate justification for abortion then how does the law prosecute those who have terminated a pregnancy with infanticide when the Mother takes no issue with it?

    If "It's not a living being, it's just a cluster of cells" is justification for abortion...then how does killing a pregnant woman equal double homicide?  

    These are the problems that arise when opening the door for abortions...you cannot logically or even legally open the possibilities without creating a conflicting issue that doesn't make any sense and doesn't conform to rationale.  



    Jamahoo
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    there are many double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to this issue, hence the disagreements.  For example if a state says not after 7 weeks (28 days) why is that the magic number?  Why not 27 or 29?
    Jamahoo
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch