Is Abortion outide of medical need murder? - 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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


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!

Is Abortion outide of medical need murder?
in Politics

By YeshuaRedeemedYeshuaRedeemed 381 Pts edited January 4
If a woman does not want a baby, she needs to use birth control, or DON'T HAVE sex! I am so tired of liberals saying my mother had the right to murder me for any reason. This is MY body, I have the right to live.
Zombieguy1987Applesauce



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • If it's inside the woman, it's a part of her body. The public at large has no say in what she can do with her body.
    Zombieguy1987Applesaucemujtaba_1J_hubesj
  • When is alive and when is not alive? What if we kill a fertile person, are we killing millions or hundreds? Is killing animals for food murder? Is an act of war murder? When is it ok to kill people? What if you make a person brain dead, is that murder? And if brain dead isnt death then do we keep the body alive forever? Personally the point to when a brain and heart fully develope is when the fetus is alive. Not before, how is someone someone when they cant control themselves in anyway?
  • midopreal said:
    When is alive and when is not alive? What if we kill a fertile person, are we killing millions or hundreds? Is killing animals for food murder? Is an act of war murder? When is it ok to kill people? What if you make a person brain dead, is that murder? And if brain dead isnt death then do we keep the body alive forever? Personally the point to when a brain and heart fully develope is when the fetus is alive. Not before, how is someone someone when they cant control themselves in anyway?
    killing animals isn't murder since that only applies to humans by definition
    War isn't murder as much as it is self defense, you can't kill an unarmed and non threatening enemy, because that would be murder, killing civilians or non combatants is murder.
    Brain dead has been a long debate and I believe if they are taken off life support and die, that person is then charged with murder.
    if someone is in a coma or some medical condition where the brain and heart are no fully developed or no longer fully functional, brain dead or whatever condition, by your definition they are no longer alive.  You may want to go back and rethink this.
    Zombieguy1987funperson
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    Pregnancy Abortion is the admission and accusation of murder inside and outside any medical necessity. The Medical necessity, as the emergency treatment is an alibi to the admission/accusation that is made by the use of explanation. This means a minimal personal guilt can still accompany the action even after the need was explained by a required action.

    So explain how you and mom had the right to limit the life time of all your brothers, sons, daughters, and sister but not you as well. The United State is living created by the admission/accusation of guilt set by the creation of Pregnancy abortion.

    Upon ovulation as woman plans not to let the egg live, and insures it will die by her lack of action, or to allow the egg to live, when does this ever change as a united State with all woman?



  • @piloteer
    Food goes inside a woman body. Does that make it apart of her?
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @AmericanFurryBoy

    Umm ya, I guess it does mean it's a part of her................Until she poops it of course.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @piloteer Prove it with genetic science.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @John_C_87 Another feminist man. Oxymoronic. Prove that the baby is part of the mother's body.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Applesauce Yes it is wrong to kill animals.
  • I do not have to prove anything such thing YeshauBought, you are pretending pregnancy abortion is only an accusation some-one might make against a woman, one which I did not make, and female specific amputation is not the self-incrimination like pregnancy abortion. There has yet to be one woman who would tell why all woman must make, or take part in a self-incriminating admission of guilt? Want to be the first woman to explain this to all other woman? I just want to hear the whole truth, that’s all.

    A man might be defending the United State Constitution, and in doing so exposing the possibility that a limited number of woman have not been preserving, protect, and defensing the United States Constitution.

    YeshuaRedeemed
  • A woman makes the personal choice to kill a baby every time she ovulates and makes no attempt to save the life she holds in the balance by nature. This is what the world can call a whole truth, nothing but truth. Welcome to the club, it is the same united state which is shared with all men ( hint, hint, whole truth) of a certain age as well. Feminist or not, I confess I have abortions and end human life every day when I do not have sexual intercourse with any woman who ask.
  • @John_C_87 No she doesn't. Abortion can only occur if conception oes.
  • @John_C_87 Yes you do have to prove the unborn child is part of the mother's body genetically.
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    Abortion is a process of officially stopping an officially started event. A person might make an argument that the event has not started in vague interpretation. However that person then is telling a lie.

    Pregnancy abortion is the abortion of a woman’s pregnancy, meaning the pregnancy has officially been stop, it is not exclusive to termination. It is not held do to freedom of speech as the meaning of abort does not revolve around only woman.  Human conception can occur without pregnancy but is not described in a united state. In Vitro Fertilization is a pregnancy abortion. Many forms of experimentation which involves the medical creation of fertilization of human egg and sperm is an pregnancy abortion.

    Yes, YeshuaBought a woman makes a conscious choice to kill a baby every time after ovulation she chooses not to have sexual intercourse to become pregnant. This is the Constitutional united State shared with all men. We can agree it is a hard reality of a law of nature? Yes? We hold this truth to be self-evident as all men are created equal. 

    There is an admission of guilt made with the word abortion, the vague inference to pregnancy does not stop the self-incrimination that is taking place. What you are saying as a person is I must believe that the admission is really just an accusation. I do not. So proving genetic relationship does not matter as all we are doing is dragging the public into self-incrimination as well as us. Understand?

    I might have to prove genetic relationship in a Female Specific Amputation if I am trying to prove it as a pregnancy abortion.



  • Every woman, every young woman who ovulate make a choice to kill a baby. Every man, every young boy who are of age to produce sperm make a choice to kill a baby. All that changes in that United State is the number of murders that take place in relationship to a natural process between the two. The idea of pregnancy abortion is following a religious script which self-incriminates not only all woman, the incrimination is transferred to all it comes in contact with. As it is only the man and woman themselves who hold a common defense as it is a part of their overall life.

    Woman had been allowed into a Congressional Armed Force under the sworn testimony by those representatives that constitutional principle can be establish by united woman, so that their cause can hold the United States Constitution law in a state of the union, not only with themselves but with all others in the world.

    Like the Democracy said Times up. Share the common defense like it is a Constitutional Republics Principle. Female Specific Amputation.


    Understand YeshuaBough?
  • Let's take this out of the realm of morality for a second and just focus on practicality. Hell, let's say I assume that it is immoral to abort outside of personal need (I'll even throw in rape and deadly genetic defects like Tay Sachs and call them all immoral) and just focus on the world you're advocating for in this post. If I'm not mistaken, you're arguing that abortions should be treated the same as murder, so long as there is no medical necessity in play. So, let's dig down into that.

    So, let's start with direct problems. What happens in a world where medical necessities are the only things that dictate whether a person can legally get an abortion?

    How will you set the line indicating the point at which something meets the threshold of sufficient medical need? Who determines that? Is one doctor enough? Two? What if doctors disagree on the degree of medical necessity? Who do these doctors report to in order to justify their decision? Do they have to justify it at all? To what degree does the mother have to be tested in order to meet this threshold? Must a doctor eliminate all other possible means of care, and if so, at what point can we agree they’ve eliminated all of them? What if a patient is in critical condition and other forms of care are less certain to address the problem? What if the patient is poor and cannot visit a doctor to get their approval? What if a patient sees a pro-life doctor who is strictly opposed to even medically necessary abortions? Would there be a standard for medical necessity? If so, what is it? What percentage chance of death is sufficient to warrant it? There would have to be some overarching government agency tasked with policing this, which means checking personal medical histories, to determine if these steps had been taken. That’s not something any agency currently has jurisdiction over, and if you leave it to internal policing within hospitals and private practices, there will be large degrees of variation. And all of this leaves out the issue of malpractice. We only need to look to Ireland, where a woman and her unborn fetus died in the absence of medical assistance, to see just how devastating a single death can be for an entire country, let alone for a single medical practice. If a doctor makes a wrong call and someone dies, that’s guaranteed to be a huge lawsuit, and smaller ones will arise from the various injuries that can potentially come about.

    Regardless, though, you're going to close down a lot of the facilities that perform abortion, reducing the number of providers who can do it. Most clinics will close, and the number of available practitioners of abortions will decline. Ignoring the lost jobs and other economic harms, this also means that someone with a medical problem will have a harder time finding someone who can actually perform the abortion. Again, this is a classist issue. Someone with the resources will range farther and find a practitioner who can do it. Someone with fewer resources will suffer for that lack. We’re actually seeing this today in states that have been dramatically reducing the number of available clinics and clinicians who do this, and this will spread the problem to states with larger populations.

    However, I think the greatest problem is legal. Suppose we treated abortion is equal to murder. Individuals would have to be investigated and tried on that basis, including the woman involved, their doctor, their family and friends (any of them could have facilitated it). Many of these would be subject to the death penalty, and all of them would be subject to lengthy trials. More importantly, if this is how we regard abortion, then miscarriage must necessarily be treated as potential murder/manslaughter. If you consider the active choice to end the life of the unborn to be murder (and I think you must if you consider those lives to be equal to all others), that means that all cases where a death of the unborn occurs must be investigated. I'm not sure what organization would have the authority to do these investigations, which would involve diving back into medical records and determining whether the patient or anyone close to them was responsible for the loss of that child. Then there would have to be further investigation into the role specific drugs and/or behaviors played in that loss, as well as the degree to which any harm was intended. If it was intended, it’s murder. If it wasn’t, there’s an open question as to whether a manslaughter charge can still be levied. If we are treating these lives the same as any viable human’s life, then all of these have to be investigated. 

    This seems like a lot to put grieving mothers through, particularly as they’d have to be questioned in detail about all the circumstances surrounding the loss of a life they have carried inside of them for months at a time. That’s going to give a lot of women pause before even seeking to get pregnant, as they would know that any loss of the child (that’s 31% of all pregnancies) could lead to an arraignment. Women who do get burned by this process, even if they aren’t found guilty, are likely going to think twice about a repeat pregnancy. If we’re concerned about a loss of life, I would say that these losses of potential life are incredibly damaging in their own right, as is the financial effect of all these court cases, the resulting court clog that further inhibits the justice system in responding to what is currently considered criminal, and the slew of other effects that come from introducing such a law.

    Again, none of these points assume the morality of abortion. None of what I'm arguing here has anything to do with the abstract concept of how we view the unborn as a species. I'm only stating the consequences of implementing these views legally.

    piloteer
  • Whiteflame

    A Medical threshold already is in place and it starts by not call the medical process an abortion.

    While to understand in basic principle pregnancy becomes abortion is an admission to murder which has been left by Constitutional legislation unseparated from the public. This means a form of religious human sacrifice has been allowed by law without the benefit of a declaration of independence.

    At this poet in history it is not murder any more, it will more than likely go on the books as a United State Civil War, A Civil World War, the question is was the War necessary. A woman kills a child every time she refuses sexual intercourse after ovulation. The egg is alive and will die by negligence. This United State is shared equally with all men who are of age to father a child.

    This United State is no longer in effect when a man and woman donate human egg or human sperm, regardless of if the egg and/or sperm where willingly provided for medical use by a man and woman. The legal precedent is missing as the question is given to medical science. Do they have a right to create its own medical Cait (Cadaver)? This is inline with the wording of Pregnancy Abortion.

    Again a person has a United States Constitutional right to refuse to take part in a publicly admitted crime. Even if law is unwell to follow protocol set by legal precedent. Female Specific Amputation is/was not a human pregnancy abortion, ever. While murder and taking part in murders is an offence which becomes subject to a Presidential pardoned under executive office Powers and/ or loss of civil right to vote.

  • John_C_87 said:

    Whiteflame

    A Medical threshold already is in place and it starts by not call the medical process an abortion.

    While to understand in basic principle pregnancy becomes abortion is an admission to murder which has been left by Constitutional legislation unseparated from the public. This means a form of religious human sacrifice has been allowed by law without the benefit of a declaration of independence.

    At this poet in history it is not murder any more, it will more than likely go on the books as a United State Civil War, A Civil World War, the question is was the War necessary. A woman kills a child every time she refuses sexual intercourse after ovulation. The egg is alive and will die by negligence. This United State is shared equally with all men who are of age to father a child.

    This United State is no longer in effect when a man and woman donate human egg or human sperm, regardless of if the egg and/or sperm where willingly provided for medical use by a man and woman. The legal precedent is missing as the question is given to medical science. Do they have a right to create its own medical Cait (Cadaver)? This is inline with the wording of Pregnancy Abortion.

    Again a person has a United States Constitutional right to refuse to take part in a publicly admitted crime. Even if law is unwell to follow protocol set by legal precedent. Female Specific Amputation is/was not a human pregnancy abortion, ever. While murder and taking part in murders is an offence which becomes subject to a Presidential pardoned under executive office Powers and/ or loss of civil right to vote.

    ...the only part of this that is at all responsive to my arguments is the first line, and it’s an assertion that doesn’t address the issue I’m presenting. If you care to actually address my points, I’ll be happy to respond to yours.
  • @whiteflame ;

    Sorry sir, how about this. The medical science already legally describe how they undertake pregnancy abortions and the start by removing the self-incrimination of the shade description of that process. They simply do not call it pregnancy abortion. It is only the public which as been given this Right to self-incriminate publicly.



  • AlecAlec 69 Pts
    Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • @Alec
    posting that w/o any kind of link lol you must be a glutton for punishment, I mean you must know what the responses are going to be, awesome troll posts btw lol I look forward to the flames ye shall receive!
    piloteer
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • John_C_87 said:
    @whiteflame ;

    Sorry sir, how about this. The medical science already legally describe how they undertake pregnancy abortions and the start by removing the self-incrimination of the shade description of that process. They simply do not call it pregnancy abortion. It is only the public which as been given this Right to self-incriminate publicly.



    I'm still not clear on how this is responsive to my point. None of my points rely on us referring to the term "abortion," though part of my argument relies on a delineation between the active choice to abort and the negligence or lack of knowledge that often contribute to miscarriages. Maybe there is some kind of harm in calling the process "abortion," though honestly, I don't see why. There are certainly a lot of negative opinions towards abortions, but I don't think changing the term substantially alters those attitudes. You're just deflecting the problem onto another term, whatever that term may be.
  • Alec said:
    Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.
    Sorry, but I hate this argument.

    First off, the notion that "science confirms" or "science proves" something is so nebulous that it's ridiculous. Science as a whole doesn't confirm anything. Biology may confirm something. Genetics may confirm something. Those are specific sciences that use specific evidence to make credible claims. Might as well say that "knowledge confirms that a fetus is a human being" for all this tells me.

    Second, how does science confirm this? What are the tools scientists have used to ascertain the truth of this statement? What factors are inherent to all human beings, and what among those factors applies to a fetus? Is there a certain number of factors required to meet the standard of "human being" or do you have to meet all of them? Part of the problem here is that you're likely going to point to a set of specific traits, claim that those traits are what makes one a human and/or a person, and stop there. Even if scientists have made those same claims, I guarantee I can find several dozen scientists who disagree with your examples, largely because any traits we select are arbitrary. We're basing it on features some of us may view as essential to humanity, while others may not. I would argue that that selection of traits is inherently philosophical, not scientific. The grand question of when humanity truly starts in the process of development is not something we can determine via the scientific method. And, if it is philosophical in nature, then science can no more "confirm" that a fetus is a human being than you or I can. Biology can tell us what specific traits arise at what points along the development of a human, genetics can tell us what traits are inherent to its genome, chemistry can tell us when certain signals and compounds are available for use by the various growing organs, and psychology can tell us when the unborn is capable of basic thought, but none of them can tell us the exact point at which a life becomes a human being.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame ;

    Yes I know I’m building up to it. Let me ask a question to help direct the exposure of the basic principle of the word abort. The medical position on abortion follows the basic principle that only a woman orders a pregnancy abortion to be performed my medical/science personnel. On only woman. Medical/Sciences as an identification to a specific peer group, as it can be said we are judged by our peers.

     This isn’t so, as the medical research institutions perform Pregnancy Abortions on woman but name them something else. The medical sciences do not lose their privacy in this way, do they?  In Vitro Fertilization regardless of introduction back to a woman’s body, or not, is a pregnancy abortion. A different abortion than what is described by the woman’s request, something which I label Female Specific Amputation. As the basic principle of common defense to the general welfare of woman is not the same between these states of abortion.



  • Abortion is a murder description. What it does is form both accusation and admission at the same time hence the alibi. We treat Pregnancy abortion how murder admission confession  should be treated, or not. The issue in not treating them it makes us as people willing participants to a crime that simply has been left unenforced.

    It is not a description that must be proven as a the crime, it is a crime it has an alibi.
  • John_C_87 said:
    Abortion is a murder description. What it does is form both accusation and admission at the same time hence the alibi. We treat Pregnancy abortion how murder admission confession  should be treated, or not. The issue in not treating them it makes us as people willing participants to a crime that simply has been left unenforced.

    It is not a description that must be proven as a the crime, it is a crime it has an alibi.
    ...Alright, I really don't get this. Seriously, I don't. What, exactly, do you want to see changed? Be specific, because each of these sentences just makes me all the more confused. I'm seeing three possible ways you're taking this:

    Should we change the term used for the killing or removal of a still non-viable unborn human? Is it something about the term you have a problem with? You don't appear to be suggesting that here, but you have in your previous posts.

    Should we alter the way that people who undergo an abortion are perceived? I don't really know how you'd do this, what that perception is (you seem to be arguing that it's essentially murder), what that perception should be, or why it should be that way.

    Should we treat abortion as a non-medical treatment? I have a feeling this is what you're going for, but I honestly have no clue what it means. Abortion, by its very nature, is a medical procedure. If someone is dying, whether partially or wholly as a result of pregnancy, then an abortion is, by definition, a treatment for a medical problem. I don't see how engaging in such a treatment is inherently criminal (I still really think you need to justify this whole "abortion is murder" argument that you keep alluding to), especially when death of the mother results in death of the unborn as well. Why is it a crime to save one life when both would otherwise be lost? What logic is there in that sentiment? And what the hell is this about an "alibi"? If you are arguing that abortion is murder, then fundamentally, wouldn't that mean that there is no alibi? Or are you saying medical reasons for aborting are an alibi? If it's the latter, I think you're confusing "alibi" for "justification," but as I said, I don't get the point you're making, so I could be wrong.
  • @whiteflame Rape culture is when unborn women are not allowed to live. I have the right to live.
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame You should not be on a debate site if you can't read. 
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame Rape culture is when unborn women are not allowed to live. I have the right to live.
    Rape culture has nothing to do with abortion. It has nothing to do with abortion of females specifically, either. It’s a sociological concept for a setting where rape is pervasive and normalized by societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. It also has nothing to do with your right to live, nor does abortion.

    And I can read well enough. You have stated that abortion is murder. I’m just taking that to it’s logical, legal conclusion. Do you no longer believe abortion is murder, and if you still do, answer my post.
  • @whiteflame I have the right to live, you liberal troll.
    piloteerZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame I have the right to live, you liberal troll.
    Never said you didn't, though apparently, your concept of rape culture and your willingness to debate topics you posted could use some work.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame The FACT remains the unborn women have the RIGHT to CHOOSE, and denying this right is a form of RAPE CULTURE!
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame You are permablocked for trolling.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought

    By definition, unborn women don’t have the capacity to choose - they don’t have the mental faculties to make a choice. If you’re saying that they have an inherent right to life, that’s a different issue, and one I’ve responded to at length here. Also, a right to life is different than rape culture. Just because you like to use the words “rape culture” doesn’t mean they apply to this situation.
    piloteer
  • @whiteflame ;
    What has to be changed is the transferable self-incrimination to the public. It Never should have taken place in the first place. It is a United State of negligence and make no mistake it cost woman their lives. And yes woman are to blame as this was created by an idea that the united states constitution was an obstacle and not common defense to the general welfare of all woman as well as men.


    A state of union on this topic might look something like this.


    The first direction of principle in any goal is to set a legal path that all woman are created equal. This path is not set outside truth. Period.

    Second remove self-incrimination from the formation of guidelines in the regulation of this independence.

    Third relive the burden on the judicial process which established the conflict of judicial principle, so that then the United State of republic vote as civil right of the general welfare can not be hindered by the Constitutional negligence.


    Translation.


    1. Establish in writing it is "all woman who are created equal."
    2. Strike any admission /confession abortion from legislation. Female specific Amputation, Gender Specific, Amputation, etc. can be used in replacement.
    3. A written pardon must be given in relationship to the loss of common defense to the civil right to vote, by the united States of America's general welfare.


  • @YeshuaBought ;

    If you believed that all unborn woman had a right to live you would try to be constantly pregnant your whole life. Knowingly allowing the unborn woman to die is in basic principle the same as officially stopping the unborn woman to live.



  • whiteflamewhiteflame 657 Pts
    edited January 11
    John_C_87 said:
    @whiteflame ;
    Translation.


    1. Establish in writing it is "all woman who are created equal."
    2. Strike any admission /confession abortion from legislation. Female specific Amputation, Gender Specific, Amputation, etc. can be used in replacement.
    3. A written pardon must be given in relationship to the loss of common defense to the civil right to vote, by the united States of America's general welfare.


    This makes a little more sense, though you seem to be broadening out a little. The first point is a basic writing issue in the Declaration of Independence - I don't think you're going to alter that. Beyond that, any such change is just symbolic, it's not something that will have any significant effect on the actual status of women in the US.

    It sounds like your views are along the lines of the first possibility, though again, I don't see how changing the term fundamentally alters anything about it. Simply stating the term is not "admission /confession", and I don't see how any of those other terms aren't admissions of the same thing. Why is the phrasing change beneficial? I'm still not clear about this.

    As for the third point, I'm at a loss. Not sure what abortion has to do with the civil right to vote, what has to be pardoned in order to affect that right, or how that affects America's general welfare. Again, this seems to go beyond the scope of the discussion we're having.
  • The Declaration of Independent was made from a connection to Monarchy the rule under King, Queen, and parliament, one person or many might throw the Church of England in to the mix. When strike any admission/confession abortion out of legislation, it is asking for representation as clarification that abort in the context used is not a legal admission of guilt, and accusation at the same time as a united state. 

    On the many levels this starts a lie when people are told there is a legal choice presented. There is an explanation found when abortion can also by its definition and precedent describe a In Vitro Fertilization, or other medical science process.
    On Civil Right to vote, simply another level admission/accusation set issue on the same basic principle, death. In this matter death is the loss of life within the independent human egg, or human sperm. Both material are alive, and die by negligence of their creator, by a life time set by choice of the two prior to any lengthening process they may share as a union. Get where the loss of civil right can come from, by the republics constitutional standard law in legislation should shape a stream line in the process of judicial separation. Not lengthen it by sophisticated plan of argument.
  • @John_C_87 Blocked for trolling. I am not pregnant because I use birth control. Life begins at conception, NOT befoire, and abortion patients are worse than rapists.
    Alec
  • Maybe the baby is better off dead then with a mother like that. Face the facts: Abortionists are baby killers, and their whore patients should be sterilized because they can't be trusted with children.
  • Maybe the baby is better off dead then with a mother like that. Face the facts: Abortionists are baby killers, and their whore patients should be sterilized because they can't be trusted with children.
    I'm sorry, were you saying something about rape culture? You know, that issue where it's entirely normal to invade someone's body without their consent, doing terrible psychological and physical harm? Wonder how forced medical sterilization fits into that... let's see... invading someone's body without their consent... doing permanent physical harm... making women fearful of their doctors should they ever have a miscarriage... yep, no rape culture here.
  • @John_C_87

    Seriously, I don't know if it's the way you write our what you're trying to say, but I'm just getting lost every time I read these posts. If I squint really hard at this and the last post, I can kind of get it, but I can't nail down the specific problems that you're solving for, or how you would solve for them. As it is, I think you're going off on a very different and more philosophic issue than anything I'm presenting or, for that matter, feel all that capable of addressing. So I'll just leave off here.
  • @whiteflame ;

    "All woman are created equal." By their creator be it man or woman YeshaBought is forming an equality one way I the other.

    No not at all. We, you and I are part of a public description of crime when it is related to use of the short phrase pregnancy abortion. I am addressing my part in the confession in participation to murder publicly, the one that is being made publicly. You are simple saying you do not hold the ability to understand your part that is taking place in the public, unregulated, your part that would be described by an accusation of a murder only. 

    A debate isn't if aborting life is murder that is foolish principle when translated to it’s basic idea. The debate is if the Innuendo    Phrase Pregnancy Abortion is the admission to that murder or the confession of that murder. Female specific amputation might be an pregnancy abortion it may not be it is an impartial phrase.



  • @YeshuaBought

    No we both commit murder of a child continually without each other as man and woman. This is the law of nature that is being addressed by a admission/confession publicly.


  • It is the intent that the principle of pregnancy abortion debate is to eliminate a truth from public understanding, so woman can act without official legal documentation of this state of independence. One that self-incriminates all three of us, John_C87, YeshuaBought, and whiteflame. The debate is over equality, and the presentation does not present that publicly. Confession or Admission? These are not equal.


  • To summarize pregnancy Abortion is about woman’s equality. A declaration for dependence. By basic principle it is both men, woman, plus couples of man and woman who kill a child by choice. This state is also shared with members of a community who share relationships with members of the same gender. We need not even delve into sexual explicitness to establish this truth, this whole truth.

  • Abortion outside of medical needs would exclude the situations in which rape has cause mental health issues with the woman or where the mothers life is in danger because of the pregnancy. It is widely agreed upon that inside the woman's body from the moment of conception that it is life. It has all the chromosomes(sometime too few or too many) and the ability to grow and develop into a fetus and then a baby. Whether or not the baby is dependent on the other is  irrelevant to whether it is a life. Since it is a life and there is no valid argument against that how can we not say that this is the killing of a life because of inconvenience. [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilisation (conception).
    "Fertilisation is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilised ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." As well we come to the moral issue that in most cases the partners have not been raped and have had consensual sexual intercourse in which they have chosen to not use a condom or birth control. You may say I do not care or it's a women's body and her choice, however once her choice impedes on another right to life it is no longer the woman's choice. I can flail my arms around as much as I want to and it is freedom of movement, but as soon as i start hitting someone else it is now assault and now I face charges and fines. The government may have no place in the bedrooms of the people but it also has no place in subsidising their sexual life.  

    To summarise pregnancy Abortion is about woman’s equality. A declaration for dependence. By basic principle it is both men, woman, plus couples of man and woman who kill a child by choice. This state is also shared with members of a community who share relationships with members of the same gender. We need not even delve into sexual explicitness to establish this truth, this whole truth.


  • Development is a description of prolonging life by sacrificing one of two lives which already exists and creating a union will lengthen life by basic principle at its end of transformation. The fertilization is a self-medication process that if not performed will be a cause of death of the both living things. A child.  When science tests the basic principle of life it is taking on the role of parents, both parents by law a medical license not a marriage license, there is an inequality in relationship to public witness to protect the general welfare by use of common defense.

    There is no medical evidence by science that sperm or egg are dead by death certificate prior to fertilization. The public is being directed to believe that there is no precedent in this matter. The idea of human sperm and human egg are donated to science in the name of medicinal research, the burden of parenting becomes shared consent in two directions, those who give and those who receive. This can be religiously expressed under law by a witness account of Binivir and Unosmulier as it is only men and woman as couple who are married as a public impartial witness account.

    A medical abortion can take place in more ways be definition that a woman can perform, when she is held in united state with all woman. When any scientist in the sequence of use of donated material fails the required introduction of the two products of human sperm and human egg. Pregnancy abortion takes place we all know this as abstinence and the child dies. Also medical abortions can take place when the woman’s body is bypassed either in part or completely in a medical process.

    A woman can only perform a Pregnancy abortion is a united state one way. Abstinence. Like all men the woman shares this burden of death of child equally with all men as a united state. A women united with all woman has an addition constitutional right of Female Specific Amputation as she is enforcing a natural process of law of nature that is specific in a united state. “All woman are created equal.”

    We are not looking at alibi in the formation of a United States constitutional right. Rape is a alibi which requires public vote on capital punishment. There is an inherent legal precedent of declaration of independence. All woman are created equal. Equality was the test made on United States Constitution. This includes woman of science and politics as a united state.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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