Should abortion be regulated, or abolished? - 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.


Communities

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 regulated, or abolished?
in Politics

I say regulated.
AlofRIZombieguy1987HunterJuneau
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • It should only be regulated by the decision of the pregnant woman!
    AlofRIZombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenPropagandaSlayerHunterJuneau
  • Pregnancy abortion shares two states, 1. Admission, and 2. Accusation it is to be legislated around, or address directly in legislation as both describing the state of the union made within it. You do not create laws around this type of conflicting union, legislators truthfully explain the consequence they create to the common welfare. @piloteer
  •  @piloteer ;

    A united State of Woman cannot/should not constitutionally make the claim of complete official end to life independent to the law without addressing the declaration of War they have made involving The House of Representatives, and Executive office. 

    A woman has a Constitutional obligation to separate herself, by description of the process abort which takes place medically involving woman in several different ways. As not only whole truth but in a united state as well. The legal precedent created by science is that the term Pregnancy abortion is legally too great of a liability to describe the procedures performed. To spite the fact and truth the word might detail takes place.  

    The united state is the dangers in relationship human reproduction can create a Mental duress. Female specific amputation describes a process to correct an abortion that has occurred on ovulation. 


  • piloteer said:
    It should only be regulated by the decision of the pregnant woman!
    So people with absolutely no qualifications should be able to conduct abortions? In any kind of unsanitary condition?
    PropagandaSlayer
  • @John_C_87 What if the mother was raped? I was raped when I was 22, and have PTSD from it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Ampersand ;

    Why are you asking that question? How does it influence the self-incriminations created against all woman? So in basic principle you are saying a man tried to murder you? You had been assaulted and did not die as a result of the attack on you? A female specific amputation was necessary to reduce the risk of death as the result of the attack? Rape is the description of attack which is an attempted murder by the risk involved after the attack?.



    AlofRIZombieguy1987HunterJuneau
  • sorry Ampersand the comment was directed at YeshuaBough I hit the wrong reply
  • @Ampersand ;

    So people with absolutely no qualifications should be able to conduct abortions? In any kind of unsanitary condition?
    Yes by not having sex. The truth is they do have abortions all the time but chose other names to identify the abortion with.
    AlofRIZombieguy1987
  • John_C_87 said:
     @piloteer ;

    A united State of Woman cannot/should not constitutionally make the claim of complete official end to life independent to the law without addressing the declaration of War they have made involving The House of Representatives, and Executive office. 

    A woman has a Constitutional obligation to separate herself, by description of the process abort which takes place medically involving woman in several different ways. As not only whole truth but in a united state as well. The legal precedent created by science is that the term Pregnancy abortion is legally too great of a liability to describe the procedures performed. To spite the fact and truth the word might detail takes place.  

    The united state is the dangers in relationship human reproduction can create a Mental duress. Female specific amputation describes a process to correct an abortion that has occurred on ovulation. 


    Show me abortion in the Constitution.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Seems to me I remember a post I commented on yesterday where our friend, YeshuaBought, stated "My body, my choice". In that context I didn't agree with her (vaccinations). In THIS context I "think" I agree with her …. a little. ;-) 
    It seems to me when some pull too hard in one direction, others are going to start pulling harder in the opposite! We, and the SCOTUS, made decisions a good while ago that were reasonable. Some decided to work against that in a totally opposite direction. Lately I have seen the push back on that to another extreme. Give an inch, take a mile! 
    I am STILL for Roe v Wade. A woman's choice, after a talk with her doctor(s). Leave it be, or some will try as hard to take it to extremes as others do to overturn it.   CHOICE. If you are religious, let your god handle it from there.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    Got to slow your roll there YeshuaBought.

     I have been showing you One: Pregnancy abortion in constitution. Basic principle officially end life. Legal precedent of pregnancy abortion admission or accusation at the same moment spoken. It cannot be both so a judicial test was required. The test found that privacy was an issue not that stating official ending life was legal.

    Two: Pregnancy abortion can be in the United States Constitution simply by common defiance to the general welfare. The only choice that is dominating this topic is woman, and other felt it better not to argue it as a common defense to all woman. Woman chose to incriminate a selection of woman.


  • @AlofRI ;
    I can not be left to continue. All woman have a equal legal obligation to the United States Constitution to create all woman as equal while under oath to testify against Constitutional principle.
  • @John_C_87 I have no idea what you said. I DO have an idea what the SCOTUS said in Roe v Wade, and I don't THINK it agrees with your ….. ?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @AlofRI ;

    Okay; so saying someone else said, SCOTUS said, this is not the legal Precedent created by Roe Vs. Wade made by ruling of Supreme Court. A loss of privacy can be criminal (legal Precedent) those who organize this loss of privacy, are by fact doing a criminal act against United States Constitution. Which meant also any number of people under the United States Constitution. (Separation required by collection of taxation)

    Woman had been asked to create a method of equality for all woman by this verdict of judicial separation. It never materialized woman never created an idea that all woman can be created equal. This process must be performed before any attempt could be made on equality of woman and men.

    The question this places on woman in concern of Pregnancy Abortion is quite clear in relationship to law. Why do all woman need to admit or stand accused to receive medical treatment? This is an act of tyranny. All men are created equal does not mean they do not possess the power of independence to change that fact themselves.

    The idea of woman fighting for the right to vote is meaningless, if woman had never understood the Constitutional precedent was to create all woman as equal to all woman in doing so. Voting. All woman can undergo Female specific amputation without self-incrimination to the public unlike pregnancy abortion. All woman can provide privacy, to all woman, it is just a shame they did not make that attempt. It is without doubt the reason of a cost life as the legality is a separation between married, and the unwed woman, citizens of the United States. As the State is set by legal boundaries.

    We can make a comparison with the legalization of Marijuana. The social issue with use, the religion of use, so to speak when at liberty; participating is complicated by the murders and violence that take place, a jeopardy of a public in consumption regardless law. All who are accused of use Marijuana are because of legislation also part of the murders, violence, and corruption as well. Unless they are Officially Pardoned by the States who are making any claims of a safe haven. The basic principle here is that this official pardon should have been placed in writing, before proclamation of declaration to a limited use is announced. The truth is the use was always legal, and all regulated by law was to control payments or the distribution as the basic principle of common welfare.




  • searsear 101 Pts

    "Should abortion be regulated, or abolished?

    I say regulated."

     a) Abortion is ALREADY regulated.

     b) Restricting abortion is a usurpation of Liberty. And any usurpation of Liberty violates our Founding principles. Liberty is an unalienable* right.

    "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." Thomas Jefferson

     * unalienable (ùn-âl´ye-ne-bel, -â´lê-e-) adjective
    Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable
    Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

  • @sear ;

    Abortion is poorly regulated it is based on both admission and accusation at the same time. All woman are created equal by their creator.

    Female specific amputation.

  • searsear 101 Pts
    Recreation is aquatically disoriented based on volley ball and magnification in different time zones. All zombies are heterozygos by order of Satan.
    Androgynous indiscriminate circumcision.
  • We the people, by the people, do not need to have all woman self-incriminate because some people have tantrums. All woman are created equally by their creator. An independent woman would be a female who strive to be the creator of herself as equal to all woman before arguments of law.
  • One's freedom to use their body however they deem fit is the most basic example of property rights. If my own body does not fully belong to me and is controlled by some bureaucrats from Washington DC, then what does belong me?

    It is usually not a good idea to make human beings into the governmental property, even partially. 
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • searsear 101 Pts
    Thanks MC.
    The essence of the right is the definition of Liberty:

    Liberty means the right and power to think, act, and express ones self in the manner of ones own choosing, provided that Liberty does not infringe or usurp the Liberty of another or others.

    I generally prefer placidity to tumult.
    But I'm not entirely ill at ease knowing my society has a conscience about "baby killers". I have no wish to usurp a woman's right to choose. But if a pregnancy is to be aborted, the sooner the better, in my opinion.

    "It is usually not a good idea to make human beings into the governmental property, even partially. " MC

    I'm also a U.S. military veteran. So - ouch -.

  •  

     The issue you neglect here is Citizen Ship. A woman is creating posterity and does not do so alone under any condition, with maybe one rare exception. The goal is a woman wants independence, this has a legal precedent of creation, and creator. All woman are created equal by their creator.

    \Woman lost autonomous control of pregnancy the moment they promoted publicly an action which did not create all woman as equal. Regardless if they had started it or not. They took part in it. The whole argument was then shifted by legislation to one crime, when a more complex crime then murder was already taking place, which was devastating to the public as it was an action against tranquility of liberty. This meant the public was drawn into participation.

    liberty means conditional choice in the ability to pursue actions we chose to participate in. It should be understood that science also creates posterity as well and is included in Pregnancy abortion on a wholesale level.

  • searsear 101 Pts
    "All woman are created equal by their creator." JC

    Not even "identical twins" are identical. "Equality under law" is a principle of law, not science.
  • Okay;

     First of all, All woman are created identical is a medical goal. Science actively takes part in the violation of privacy that is taking place. A person who describes the form of equality they share as a united State under oath with all woman is the creator. My creation is Female specific amputation, when lawyer, judge, police officer, political figure use the term abortion in relationship to pregnancy abortion, they are the creator as well. The idea is a common defense to the general welfare has been acknowledged, and assumed by its use.

     We do not create identical as creator, unless we are a plastic surgeon, and the odds of any completion of such a task are great.  All woman forming independence this is completely different in principle. Contradicting the basic principle is an act of fraud that can be translated into the public as a complicated crime. Constitutional representation is nothing more than basic principle and legal outcome of events that have taken place earlier, transpired, left record on history.

    By equality of law, not under law, are you say equality before law? Like written the law is under GOD and axiom when not held as self-incriminating to judicial separation and those who are assigned the task. As this can be separated and instruction can be given as a common defense to show an axiom can be a center of principle without tyranny. Correct?

  • searsear 101 Pts
    "All woman are created identical is a medical goal." JC

    a) Whose "medical goal"?

    b) How do you know? Did you read it? If so, who wrote it? What actions are being taken to achieve it?
  • A.  Whose "medical goal"?

    B.  How do you know? Did you read it? If so, who wrote it? What actions are being taken to achieve it?

     

    A.   Their own goal by choice, you know right, the thing people get to make between two things other than a type of guilt. Admission, or accusation.

    B.    (1 - 4) They have said so on TV, during interviews in articles, and also I have talked with woman who openly said they had surgery to have the same nose or other likeness of a woman they had seen.

    So why do all woman need to admit and accused of a crime by law as the same time?

  • searsear 101 Pts
    "A.   Their own goal by choice, you know right, the thing people get to make between two things other than a type of guilt. Admission, or accusation." JC

    ?
    A coincidental conspiracy that all involved just happen to adhere to?!
    That is absolutely MONUMENTALLY unlikely.

    "B.    (1 - 4) They have said so on TV, during interviews in articles, and also I have talked with woman who openly said they had surgery to have the same nose or other likeness of a woman they had seen.

    So why do all woman need to admit and accused of a crime by law as the same time?" JC

    That doesn't mean it's : "All woman are created identical is a medical goal." JC

    Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, men's taste vary.

     - Some men like tall women.

     - Some men like short women.

     - Some men like buxom women.

     - Some men like slender women.

     - thousands of etc.

    And women like to distinguish themselves, NOT to blend in, but to stand out. And your assertion is the contrary of that.

    You're welcome to your opinion. But there is no universal drive to render all women identical. But even if there were it's not an achievable goal with today's technology.


  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited February 26
    @sear

    You have very strange attitude  for a born again Christian and rabid Trump supporter 
  • @sear ;

    A coincidental conspiracy that all involved just happen to adhere to?!

    That is absolutely MONUMENTALLY unlikely.

      Not when one person cannot give a reason why all woman must either admit or confess publicly to a crime that is described for them.


    That doesn't mean it's : "All woman are created identical is a medical goal." JC

    Yes it does, identical is an appearance and the goal of equality is set on woman to hold all woman as equal, not all look alike. yet, still this question is going unanswered.  “So why do all woman need to admit and accused other woman of a crime by law at the same time?”



  • Abortion is killing a human being. it should be banned
    Zombieguy1987
  • Abortion, quite simply, is murder. And, as such, it should be illegal and is highly immoral.

    1. Murder:
    The four characteristics of life are present at fertilization: Growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. [1]

    From the moment of fertilization, a living human being is growing. It has DNA distinct from its mother, and is not just a "clump of cells."

    With ultrasound technology, we see the baby moving around in the mother's womb.

    Scientists have also documented a "flash of light that sparks when a sperm meets an egg" at conception.
    [2] 



    2. Illegality of murder:
    Every single country has laws against murder. Therefore abortion should be illegal in every country.



    The Moral case for illegality:
    Globally, 56 million abortions happen per year. [3]

    To put this number into perspective, the most generous estimates of the holocaust pit the number of jewish deaths at 6 million throughout all 12 years. [4]

    So in one holocaust year, 500,000 jews died, but in one abortion year 56 million babies die.

    To compare numbers, if we took abortion and stretched it to 12 years, 672 million babies died within an equal time span to the holocaust.

    Now, abortion is a very violent process. A baby is sucked out of a woman like a crumb is sucked off a table. [5]

    And if a baby somehow manages to survive this process, it is often murdered on the spot. [6]

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    [2] https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-captured-the-actual-flash-of-light-that-sparks-when-sperm-meets-an-egg
    [3] https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
    [4] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
    [5] https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/abortion-procedures-surgical
    [6] https://aul.org/2013/04/15/infanticide-in-america-how-many-infants-die-after-birth-in-abortion-clinics/
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • @YeshuaBought

    Abortion is unconstitutional due to the very first sentence:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [1]

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    Our posterity has a right to life because they have a right to liberty.


    References:
    [1] http://constitutionus.com/
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



  • John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



    If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

    Murder is not a constitutional right.

    Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 548 Pts
    edited March 6
    John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



    If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

    Murder is not a constitutional right.

    Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

    Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • searsear 101 Pts
    "Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries" As

    Random House?

    Ref:
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved, an excellent linguistic resource.

  • Ampersand said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



    If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

    Murder is not a constitutional right.

    Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

    Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.
    Even if it isn't truly "murder" to deprive a baby in the womb of life, it is, at the very least, a premeditated killing.

    But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

    A baby in the womb is a "posterity" and as such it has a right to life, regardless of whether it is in or out of the fetus.

    The fact that, once again, it is fully alive in the womb [2] proves that, to have an abortion means to deprive a posterity of this country of life, and as such it is unconstitutional to do so.


    References:
    [1] https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
    [2] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 548 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



    If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

    Murder is not a constitutional right.

    Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

    Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.
    Even if it isn't truly "murder" to deprive a baby in the womb of life, it is, at the very least, a premeditated killing.

    But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

    A baby in the womb is a "posterity" and as such it has a right to life, regardless of whether it is in or out of the fetus.

    The fact that, once again, it is fully alive in the womb [2] proves that, to have an abortion means to deprive a posterity of this country of life, and as such it is unconstitutional to do so.


    References:
    [1] https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
    [2] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    A pre-meditated killing is murder, so I'm not sure what kind of semantic quibble you're trying to make. Regardless, neither of them apply to a legal abortion.

    Feel free to quote to or link the part of the US Constitution which defines a fetus as "a posterity".Of course you won't be able to because no such passage exists.

    You would like it to mean that, but what you like and what occurs in reality are two different thing. It is established in law that a fetus does not have an inalienable right to life until it is viable (able to live outside of the womb, with artificial aid if necessary), at which point it receives rights and protections. The Constitution doesn't delve into specifics, leaving the interpretation of the Constitution up to the lawmakers and  the judiciary. While you should feel free to make the case that you think it should be interpreted in the way you like due to whatever moral reasoning you wish to provide, trying to claim that that's what the constitution explicitly says is absurd and an outright lie.


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

    Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.

    Strange you didn't go back to Roe V Wade; you know, the SCOTUS decision that settled abortion as being legal.  Then again;
    The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)

  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Pregnancy abortion describes the murder, this murder that is described by both admission and accusation takes place separate from any fact that may be relevant, the point you are making is not being argued. It is the cause for alteration of legislation which capitalizes on the two states of basic principle it shares as a union. To lengthen litigation.

    By the way it is described in the admission/confession of only one thing crime told as a choice. This is a lie. All woman share this type crime state equally by the translation of negligence, this same idea negligence can be applied to all woman, when it is described negligent they refuse to have sexual intercourse. Life starts before fertilization, and fertilization is simple the home remedy, with medical risk to lengthen that life already under started. All woman are created equal by their creator, in this case it can be the negligence which dictates a general welfare between woman and the United States of America.

    The idea of Murder not Constitutional, not right can only be asserted by a State which upholds the united state of constitutional principle by its legislation of the law in the first place. Female specific amputation is not abortion, the tolerance of death is already set by all woman as a united state with the public by marriage and abstinence.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens.

    The United States Constitution provides a common defense to the general welfare of all men, when they are created equal by their creator. By declaration of independence.

    The fact that, once again, it is fully alive in the womb [2] proves that, to have an abortion means to deprive a posterity of this country of life, and as such it is unconstitutional to do so.

    You need to connect a basic principle with legal precedent, alive now is a basic principle that excludes form posterity realistically. The child is dependent on the mother for citizenship more than all other, female specific Amputation may only mean to deprive a citizenship by an inability to hold test equal to the law of the governing lands.



  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

    The state can argue the unborn child has a right to citizenship only if that states burden of proof can establish that all woman’s lives are not at risk of death by pregnancy by child birth. The constitutional right is this open by basic principle this includes both life and death. The structure of legislation would need to be refocused to create a better balance in the state of the union between woman themselves as all equal.



  • John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

    The state can argue the unborn child has a right to citizenship only if that states burden of proof can establish that all woman’s lives are not at risk of death by pregnancy by child birth. The constitutional right is this open by basic principle this includes both life and death. The structure of legislation would need to be refocused to create a better balance in the state of the union between woman themselves as all equal.



    Once again you are engaging in a Straw Man. I am arguing that posterity, regardless of whether it is granted citizenship or not, is guaranteed constitutional rights. 

    You have also misquoted our ruling document. The government does not provide a common defense OF our welfare. It provides for our common defense AND PROMOTES our general welfare. Meaning that it does both, not just one.
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Preamble as formal introduction of truth.

    It is not that I use a straw man argument, all that is done is achieve by burden of witness, the recognition that pregnancy abortion is a lie told then described to others to use, self-incriminates as it places all woman in the same principle of crime without any idea of innocence, this is in disregard of truth. Pregnancy abortion as it may be proven as simply a female specific amputation is a verbal way using legislation with law to present a double headed coin as a creation of justice.

    In Order to form the more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.

    https://usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html

    Capital punishment is a Constitutional Right, It is not the claim of self-defense.

     

    You have also misquoted our ruling document. The government does not provide a common defense OF our welfare.

    It wasn’t a misquote. The United States Constitution provides for a common defense for all men. As the declaration of independence reads. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

    This though sounding sexist is not, it is a basic principle behind a self-evident truth. A monarchy is derived of a rule by both King and Queen, and parliament holds a similar legal bond with the use of marriage on those who serve A Crown. To skip the long details of a common defense against sexism woman simple failed as a whole to establish all woman as create equal.






  • searsear 101 Pts
    "Pregnancy abortion describes the murder," J8

     False. "Murder" means the illegal killing of one human being by another.
     When abortion isn't illegal, it's not murder,  BY DEFINITION !

    "... this murder that is described by both admission and accusation takes place separate from any fact that may be relevant" J8

     ??

     
     

  • @sear ;

    When Pregnancy Abortion isn’t illegal.

    Which of the crimes that could be linked to Pregnancy abortion is legal? All crimes? Making a claim to officially stopping life, be it at beginning, end, or somewhere in the middle describe only one of the crimes, that of murder. The idea that immunity of self-incrimination, along with becoming part of any cover-up given without writing is observed.

    Just how many woman give birth to babies which is not human? I could not find that number? Do we count woman who donate egg to science? The issue is on the ability of independence from other woman, and men in a process which describes all woman are created equal while regulated by legislation.

     

    Female specific amputation is not an admission/confession like pregnancy abortion it is a phrase that does not describe crime that a person is asked to then take part in.

    Just how many woman give birth while pregnant to none human babies? The idea of legality of abortion is not based on the definition, the legality is based on what is being said to have been aborted. All woman are created equal by their creator female specific amputation is not abortion.

    If Abortion is an admission/accusation to murder then oral copulation is a form of admission and accusation to cannibalism when swallowing is said to takes place.

    Yes; in basic principle.



  • Ampersand said:
    Ampersand said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

    The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

    First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

    Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

    Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

    Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.



    If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

    Murder is not a constitutional right.

    Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

    Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

    Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

    It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

    Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.
    Even if it isn't truly "murder" to deprive a baby in the womb of life, it is, at the very least, a premeditated killing.

    But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

    A baby in the womb is a "posterity" and as such it has a right to life, regardless of whether it is in or out of the fetus.

    The fact that, once again, it is fully alive in the womb [2] proves that, to have an abortion means to deprive a posterity of this country of life, and as such it is unconstitutional to do so.


    References:
    [1] https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
    [2] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    A pre-meditated killing is murder, so I'm not sure what kind of semantic quibble you're trying to make. Regardless, neither of them apply to a legal abortion.

    Feel free to quote to or link the part of the US Constitution which defines a fetus as "a posterity".Of course you won't be able to because no such passage exists.

    You would like it to mean that, but what you like and what occurs in reality are two different thing. It is established in law that a fetus does not have an inalienable right to life until it is viable (able to live outside of the womb, with artificial aid if necessary), at which point it receives rights and protections. The Constitution doesn't delve into specifics, leaving the interpretation of the Constitution up to the lawmakers and  the judiciary. While you should feel free to make the case that you think it should be interpreted in the way you like due to whatever moral reasoning you wish to provide, trying to claim that that's what the constitution explicitly says is absurd and an outright lie.


    The very definition of "posterity" according to Black's law Dictionary is as follows:

    "All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest gen POSTHUMOUS CHILD 920 POTENTIAL eration. Breckinridge v. Denny, 8 Bush (Ky.) 027." [1]

    This means that the Constitution protects ALL DESCENDANTS of a person's right to life. An abortion effectively takes away that right. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

    But, just to cement this further, the U.S. Code does, indeed define "child":

    "A person’s “children” are that person’s immediate offspring, whether legitimate or not, and any children legally adopted by that person." [2]

    Being as "immediate offspring" is present at the womb at the moment of conception, then, clearly, their right to life is constitutionally protected and the Government has a duty to protect it since it must "provide for the common defense" of its citizens and posterity.

    Therefore, constitutionally, abortion must be abolished. It deprives a posterity of the right to life, and the government must oppose such things to fulfill its constitutional duty.

    References:
    [1] https://thelawdictionary.org/posterity/
    [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.

  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    The right to life is assumed by nature at the creation of egg for the woman. While in the same instant the right of life is assumed for many, many, sperm at the point of their creation. The burden of negligence as a cause of death to the number of living sperm produced by a male is set by the law of nature which has governed the woman as the creator of her egg. The egg is alive as it was formed inside the woman, it is by the woman's negligence the egg is not fertilized, negligence alone does not make her wrong. Every egg which enters a woman's whom is posterity. 

    Do you see yourself as being biased on which posterity you chose the protect? The Constitutional argument, the basic principle that creates the United State between egg, fertilized egg, and child is life and death. Woman do not just fertilized eggs in the whom they give orders to have it performed externally. The idea of creating all woman as equal is misplaced by your bias of protection the assembling of law directs to posterity, as all woman is a description which can also truthfully be applied to the future of generations of many people. On a separate note the United States Constitution, and Constitution itself are not the same application of principle.

     Constitution is the combination of basic principle with legal precedent only. United States Constitution is the combination of more than one State set around the idea of basic principles, and legal precedent. As far as negligence goes how many children die that you know of due to a woman under age of consent does not have sexual relations to save that egg? It is the idea of all men are created equal by united State which provides legal precedent to make that distinction a basic principle of separation. For a young woman.

     Female Specific Amputation is not Pregnancy abortion. You now have a constitutional right to abolish abortion independently from all woman. this as woman or man. Your welcome. By the way I use the same phrase to separate myself from self-incrimination of the admission and accusation legislation draws law into making.
  • @sear
    sear said:
    "Pregnancy abortion describes the murder," J8

     False. "Murder" means the illegal killing of one human being by another.
     When abortion isn't illegal, it's not murder,  BY DEFINITION !

    "... this murder that is described by both admission and accusation takes place separate from any fact that may be relevant" J8

     ??

     
     
    Its not sanitary to keep those signs on the ground like that they should be set against the backpack upright. I can't wait till we invent the hologram protest sign.

  • John_C_87 said:

    @PropagandaSlayer ;

    The right to life is assumed by nature at the creation of egg for the woman. While in the same instant the right of life is assumed for many, many, sperm at the point of their creation. The burden of negligence as a cause of death to the number of living sperm produced by a male is set by the law of nature which has governed the woman as the creator of her egg. The egg is alive as it was formed inside the woman, it is by the woman's negligence the egg is not fertilized, negligence alone does not make her wrong. Every egg which enters a woman's whom is posterity. 

    Do you see yourself as being biased on which posterity you chose the protect? The Constitutional argument, the basic principle that creates the United State between egg, fertilized egg, and child is life and death. Woman do not just fertilized eggs in the whom they give orders to have it performed externally. The idea of creating all woman as equal is misplaced by your bias of protection the assembling of law directs to posterity, as all woman is a description which can also truthfully be applied to the future of generations of many people. On a separate note the United States Constitution, and Constitution itself are not the same application of principle.

     Constitution is the combination of basic principle with legal precedent only. United States Constitution is the combination of more than one State set around the idea of basic principles, and legal precedent. As far as negligence goes how many children die that you know of due to a woman under age of consent does not have sexual relations to save that egg? It is the idea of all men are created equal by united State which provides legal precedent to make that distinction a basic principle of separation. For a young woman.

     Female Specific Amputation is not Pregnancy abortion. You now have a constitutional right to abolish abortion independently from all woman. this as woman or man. Your welcome. By the way I use the same phrase to separate myself from self-incrimination of the admission and accusation legislation draws law into making.
    I'll respond paragraph by paragraph:

    Para 1:
    Once again this is a Straw Man. I am not advocating for the right to life of sperm. Nor am I advocating the right to life of eggs. I am advocating the right to life of human beings.

    A human being's life on this planet begins as the moment of fertilization. The moment a sperm and egg combine, a person is created. [1]

    The two are no longer sperm and egg, it is now a human being, a life that has not existed before is brought into this world.

    Para. 2:
    There is no bias in protecting all life. To assert such a thing is a red herring that does not have anything to do with this discussion.

    Millions of aborted babies are women, I'm advocating to protect a female baby's right to life just as much as a male baby's right to life.

    Your argument of me being biased toward women because I want to protect posterity is simply a Non Sequitur. Women are U.S. citizens and as such have just as much a right to life as their posterity. 

    All citizens in this country do not have a constitutional right to murder because of the right to life. To assert that I'm advocating bias against women is simply illogical. In reality, I am protecting millions of women who are aborted.

    Para. 3:
    The Constitution itself states that it is the supreme ruling document of the land. It is a document that sets the legal precedent for our country:

    "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [3]

    Following this logically, it would follow that the moment the Constitution was ratified by all the states, it set the precedent for all following laws, being the supreme document of our nation.


    References:
    [1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science
    [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 116 Pts
    @John_C_87 ; Just want to make one point here. You, apparently think SCOTUS is a person?? It's an acronym for "Supreme Court of the United States" SCOTUS. The ones that decided Roe v Wade. Where are you from?? 
  • @PropagandaSlayer ;

    A human being's life on this planet begins as the moment of fertilization. The moment a sperm and egg combine, a person is created.

    Life begins in two parts, an egg and a sperm with humans. The one sperm comes from a living pool of sperm which travel to search out the egg. Life is only extended by the union to form one existence with extended longevity.

    Ratification does not set legal Precedent, it is a United States constitutional introduction to the Legal precedent creation process. While ratification is in no way insures of introduction of a basic principle being in use as a legal united state.

    The argument made is meant to include sciences performing the task of fertilization, this to create the start of life, this understanding is not true science assumes only the roll of only legal guardian by extending two lives. We are talking by the most basic principle in shared understanding between the two points as a united state, so by taking the donation of human sperm and egg science is only the legal guardian of the child who was put up for adoption. So to speak.

    A ratification set as Amendment of the United States Constitution can be abolished upon its established loss of Constitutional authenticity in a Court of Law by judicial Separation In these United States.




    PropagandaSlayer
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