Should taxpayers be forced to fund some woman's abortion? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should taxpayers be forced to fund some woman's abortion?

Debate Information

For neutrality's sake, I will only comment in the comment section?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • funpersonfunperson 66 Pts   -  
    No
  • As any other elective surgery it should be properly subsidized and controlled and so should undergo the scrutiny. Also services should always be offered equally to people without the rationale or economic viability to participate.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Nobody should be "forced" to do anything in a free society. If one wants to fund someone else's abortion procedure, they can always directly donate to that person, or to a charity that will spend the money accordingly. And if not, then, moral or not, it is their right to spend their money on themselves or on someone else they want to spend their money on.
    cheesycheese
  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Nobody should be "forced" to do anything in a free society. If one wants to fund someone else's abortion procedure, they can always directly donate to that person, or to a charity that will spend the money accordingly. And if not, then, moral or not, it is their right to spend their money on themselves or on someone else they want to spend their money on.
    what about being forced to not kill is that ok
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @funperson Agreed.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Nobody should be "forced" to do anything in a free society. If one wants to fund someone else's abortion procedure, they can always directly donate to that person, or to a charity that will spend the money accordingly. And if not, then, moral or not, it is their right to spend their money on themselves or on someone else they want to spend their money on.
    what about being forced to not kill is that ok
    That is a good point. I saw the pictures, and I am prolife.

  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @DarrickJohnston No. I have the Christian right to not pay for that which goes against my religion.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @cheesycheese

    The phrase "forced to not kill" makes no sense, because not killing does not constitute an action.
  • The constitutional issue in this question is that a misrepresentation of a admission of guilt placed in a united state with the democratic  public is used to ignore the other crimes that are going on that are not admitted and are simple harder to prove. The cost and burden of proof does not mean at some time in the future these crimes cannot be enforced by law and cost the public a civil Right, their constitutional right to vote.

    Tax funding will undoubtable need to be directed at some point to the judicial separation process that should have been occurring on any admission of guilt on a known felony. Also it should be noted that science has been performing abortion with taxation funding. As In Vitro fertilization research is linked directly to abortion as a process it simple removes the woman from any control fertilization of an egg. 

    As a common defense to a general welfare at this point the description of female specific amputation would be an address to Constitutional privacy issue describe by Roe vs Wade

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch