Should Abortion Be Legal in The United States of Americia - 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!

Should Abortion Be Legal in The United States of Americia
in United States

By kevin_burkekevin_burke 47 Pts edited April 16
Americans will soon be given the opportunity to vote to criminalize abortion.
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Abortion is Murder
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    It should be illegal to declare a vote suggesting making it illegal. Individual property rights, including the right to own one's body fully, must be protected by the Constitution, and it is unfortunate that the Founding Fathers did not think so far ahead and failed to do so.

    We barely own anything as it is. The government can come up with any excuses to expropriate any piece of our property. Giving the control over our bodies to it as well would be very Orwellian.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    Adoption is an answer to abortion.
    kevin_burkecalebsicaAlofRIPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @kevin_burke aint nobodies business if you do
    kevin_burkePlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @TKDB its none of your business bud out
    kevin_burke
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @MayCaesar property is theft but i would make a distinction with personal property 


     movable property; belongings exclusive of land and buildings. you body is your won property we can agree on that 100%


    kevin_burke
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • kevin_burkekevin_burke 47 Pts
    edited April 16
    @MayCaesar
     I would completely agree if I knew beyond reasonable doubt that the child carried in the womb was not a living person. Because I know this to be true I know that under the equal protection clause is unconstitutional therefore illegal.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    @kevin_burke

    You asked whether it should be illegal, not whether it is illegal under the current Constitution. And with regards to that question, whether the creature is a "living person" (whatever it means) or not is completely irrelevant.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • I asked if it should be legal in the united states which means under the constitution. And the fact if they are a living person has everything to do with it because if you are a living person you have the right to life liberty and justice.
  • @MayCaesar
    do you believe slavery was wrong
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @billbatard

    "its none of your business bud out"

    What are you defending?

    Roe v Wade?

    Or are you defending the anti abortion supporters? 
  • @TKDB
    They're not anti-abortion their pro-life
  • I asked if it should be legal in the united states which means under the constitution. And the fact if they are a living person has everything to do with it because if you are a living person you have the right to life liberty and justice.
    do you believe slavery was wrong
    @MayCaesar
    AlofRI
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    Yes of course it should, anything else is a step backwards 
    calebsica
  • @Dee ;
    people thought the same thing about slavery. But, what is happening now is even worse because instead of forced labor its the death penalty for the innocent. And they don't have a voice to speak out against this injustice for themselves.
    calebsicaAlofRI
  • @MayCaeser ;
    the fetus is not the woman's body, so she should not have control over somebody else's body.
    AlofRIMajoMILSdlGMGV
  • @MayCaeser ;
    the fetus is not the woman's body, so she should not have control over somebody else's body.
    AlofRI
  • Pregnancy abortion is an admission of murder which is instantly said to be an accusation by most people who defense the Idea of uniting all woman with a criminal admission of guilt. This is a whole truth.

    AlofRI
  •  @kevin_burke ;

    The idea is to address the constitutional issue of admissions of guilt. As an addmission of crime it cannot be consitutional made illgal. The use of an  addmission in crime is found to be illegal or not, mallice or not. Negligence and malpractice of justice in truth are self-evident in the creation as equality for all woman, by all woman is formed using crime. This is also demostrated in the priciple of justification for a woman being a woman who sits for the future of all men in whole truth. President.

  • calebsica said:
    @MayCaeser ;
    the fetus is not the woman's body, so she should not have control over somebody else's body.
    And the women's body is not the fetus's body so the fetus should have no control over somebody else's body... 

    Also, although a fetus is a living organism, it is NOT a living "person"...  
    AlofRIZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @kevin_burke ;

    Sadly it is the admission that is used to describe a process which creates the loss of privacy by all woman in a united state. In whole truth this is done as it creates self-incrimination to others in the public by use of the type crime which is admitted, while the crime suggested in details has no natural limitation of prosecution. A pardon, tribunal, or trial is required to put an end to the admission held within public recorded by legislation of law. Female Specific Amputation is a response to the attack on the basic principle of civil liberty which is the target of the attack as world trade of Constitutional Law is discredited.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    If I was a woman I would say: "If you take away my reproductive rights, can I take away yours?"  
    The law is the law, it has been gone over by the SCOTUS, it has been verified. Stacking the SCOTUS to get the result about 30% of the country wants is un-democratic! The majority HAS ruled, several times. As the Beatles once said: "Let it BE!"
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @kevin_burke ;
    people thought the same thing about slavery. But, what is happening now is even worse because instead of forced labor its the death penalty for the innocent. And they don't have a voice to speak out against this injustice for themselves.

    It is not the same a slave was a prisoner of War from distant Nation. A baby is the creation of a citizen of the births nation by a sponsor creator. In this particular instance the mother and father can be legal citizen and not foreign diplomat. A capital punishment is a constant in relationships to the creation of life when addressing a man and woman as an official couple. By intention the couple constantly does not, will not, or has not save a life that has started in the woman in basic principle. In 'whole truth why is it a limited number of people only complain of the one negligence creating death as fact when the whole truth describes many more? 
  • kevin_burkekevin_burke 47 Pts
    edited April 18
    @Everyone
    I have come to the conclusion that this site has no meaning and will bring about no change in anyone. For those of you who debated maturely and responsibly it was an honor. I pray that everyone here will grow closer to god and live a good life thank you and goodbye
  • Kill all the babys who cares anymore
  •   
    AlofRI said:
    If I was a woman I would say: "If you take away my reproductive rights, can I take away yours?"  
    The law is the law, it has been gone over by the SCOTUS, it has been verified. Stacking the SCOTUS to get the result about 30% of the country wants is un-democratic! The majority HAS ruled, several times. As the Beatles once said: "Let it BE!"
        A woman's reproductive rights are only taken away in situations of rape, Period. At the point where she is getting an abortion she has already excersised her right to reproduce. 
         
        As far as "the law is the law" it certainly is not. There are few laws that make less sense than the laws we have in this country concerning the unborn. At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws in direct opposition to abortion laws. On one side, a person will be charged with murder if a fetus is killed at any point after conception, up to and including if a woman lost her unborn child on the way to get an abortion. However if she makes it there to get an abortion, the unborn child is no longer protected and the woman is. The question has already been answered as to when life is considered life. The only honest question that should be asked is if irresponsibility, selfishness and an utter refusal to take responsiblity for one's actions should be good enough reason to end a life so that a woman can move along with her life uninterupted. How can only 30% of the country want to protect the unborn if 38 out of 50 states have laws that passed protecting them? 
       
      What needs to happen is that our country needs to get on the same page one way or another. An unborn child should be protected in all cases or an unborn child should be protected in none. End of   story. 
      
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @kevin_burke

    You say .....
    people thought the same thing about slavery.

    My reply .....what’s that got to do with abortion?  People used the Bible and it’s words to justify slavery you’re one of them 

    You say .....But, what is happening now is even worse

    My reply .....But the Bible approves of slavery and also abortion if god commands it 

    You say ....because instead of forced labor its the death penalty for the innocent. And they don't have a voice to speak out against this injustice for themselves.

    My reply .....I put a woman’s right to choice regarding bodily autonomy over any assumed rights anyone claims a fetus has 
  • @BrandyKnight

    The anti-abortion crowd only tries to impose it's religious views on the rest of us... I'll fight any and all religious attempts to influence government and the Law at any level...

    Reducing the number of abortion is a nice goal and something to strive for sure, but impeding access to abortion is unconstitutional... A much better way is through early sex education, promoting academic education as well as economic education... Educate people, and abortion rate will naturally decline. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @BrandyKnight

    The anti-abortion crowd only tries to impose it's religious views on the rest of us... I'll fight any and all religious attempts to influence government and the Law at any level...

    Reducing the number of abortion is a nice goal and something to strive for sure, but impeding access to abortion is unconstitutional... A much better way is through early sex education, promoting academic education as well as economic education... Educate people, and abortion rate will naturally decline. 
        I am not part of any anti abortion crowd, nor do I have anything to do with being interested in imposing any religious views on anyone. I only speak to reality and truth regardless of harshness. It is a hard pill to swallow but it is the truth. Our laws contradict each other and abortion 99% of the time is a selfish act performed to not wrinkle or discomfort someone's life. It is not based on women's rights to their bodies nor does it have anything to do with reproductive rights, period. My point is that our laws need to match one way or another and both sides know that, they just don't want to address it because it makes for some very uncomfortable conversations. An unborn child is either a life to be protected or not. It is always amusing to me how people immediately characterize others. 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 441 Pts
    edited April 19
    @BrandyKnight
    It is always amusing to me how people immediately characterize others.
    Like when you say: " abortion 99% of the time is a selfish act performed to not wrinkle or discomfort someone's life."??
    It is not based on women's rights to their bodies nor does it have anything to do with reproductive rights, period.
    Of course it is, on both counts... Do you know of bodily autonomy/integrity? It's usually considered a human right... It means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It's why you cannot be forced to donate blood, tissue, organs. Even if you're dead, even if it would save or improve 20 lives... It's why someone can't touch you, have sex with you,  or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.  

    A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore, under bodily autonomy it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person continuous consent. if they deny or withdraw consent, for any reason whatsoever, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else's body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.

    By saying a fetus has a right to someone's body parts until it's born, despite the pregnant person's wishes, you're doing 2 things...

    1: Granting a fetus more rights to other people's body part than any born person.
    2: Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  •  My apologies. I was in a hurry and only included rapes in my percentage number. medically necessary abortions make up around 24% so I should have posted 75% instead of 99%. Thank you for catching that. However, that is not a judgmental statement. It is a factual statement.

     I am confused about your argument concerning women's rights. I happen to whole heartedly agree that we should have the right have sex or not. We should have the right to get pregnant or not. There is nothing in my statement that says otherwise. Again though, using common logic, a woman who becomes pregnant not by rape has voluntarily exercised her right to do with her body what she wanted, That is then the decision is made, not after the fact. She chose to engage in behavior that produced another life. No one forced her nor did they keep her from exercising that right. 

     A fetus has to use the body parts of the person who created it. A fetus did not take over control of her body. She made a choice that created it and is thereafter responsible for it. Responsibility is missing from all of the arguments. 

    Finally, my point, again, is not to be pro abortion or anti abortion. My point is that we have laws that contradict each other when it comes to the protection of the unborn and they need to be fixed. I @Plaffelvohfen
  •  My apologies. I was in a hurry and only included rapes in my percentage number. medically necessary abortions make up around 24% so I should have posted 75% instead of 99%. Thank you for catching that. However, that is not a judgmental statement. It is a factual statement.

     I am confused about your argument concerning women's rights. I happen to whole heartedly agree that we should have the right have sex or not. We should have the right to get pregnant or not. There is nothing in my statement that says otherwise. Again though, using common logic, a woman who becomes pregnant not by rape has voluntarily exercised her right to do with her body what she wanted, That is then the decision is made, not after the fact. She chose to engage in behavior that produced another life. No one forced her nor did they keep her from exercising that right. 

     A fetus has to use the body parts of the person who created it. A fetus did not take over control of her body. She made a choice that created it and is thereafter responsible for it. Responsibility is missing from all of the arguments. 

    Finally, my point, again, is not to be pro abortion or anti abortion. My point is that we have laws that contradict each other when it comes to the protection of the unborn and they need to be fixed.  @Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 441 Pts
    edited April 19
    @BrandyKnight

    Well, many laws contradict each other on a lot of issues so your point is moot really... At best it's an argument about legal system reforms but not abortion...

    What you seemed to have missed in regards to "rights to body parts" is the continuous consent part... Say Bob agrees to give a kidney that would save Joe's life, let's add that Bob's kidney is the only compatible one on the planet and should he refuse Joe has 100% chance of dying... Now, if Bob changes his mind just before sedation, reasons why are irrelevant here (panic, revelation, whatever), would the surgeons have any right to forcefully go on with the procedure? No... Joe would die yes, sad but that is what living things do, they die...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  •  It is absolutely not moot in this situation because a major supporting argument in the maintaining of abortion legalization is that the beginning of human life cannot be determined. However 38 states have already determined it. No one will honestly address it because it would have a huge impact one way or another and abortion supporters have nothing in defense other than voting that the unborn should not be protected in any case whether it was wanted or not wanted. Can you see the picket signs? "My rights to get rid of a "problem" that I created is more important than protecting the rights of other peoples' unborn children". In that sense, it is really ugly. 

      You seem to have missed the part where something did not take over someone's body against her will. She created it. There is nothing remotely similar about creating a life and choosing to end it and volunteering to share an organ then changing your mind. One is responsible for the life of another, one is not . 
  • @BrandyKnight

    You're argument about contradicting laws is an argument about the legal system, not abortion get over it... The "beginning of life moment" is also irrelevant, personhood is the legal pivot, not life... Personhood legally begins at birth, Roe v Wade: "the unborn have never been recognized as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. That's why so many laws in anti-abortionist states get overruled by the SCOTUS...

    Now, the "beginning of life moment" can be a moral pivot sure, but not a legal one and therefore is a personal choice. And like it or not, whether it's your case or not, the overwhelming majority of "pro-life" supporters are pushing a religious agenda in secular and legal matters breaching the separation of Church and State and must be opposed.  
    There is nothing remotely similar about creating a life and choosing to end it and volunteering to share an organ then changing your mind. One is responsible for the life of another, one is not . 
    So, you're making a distinction between responsibility for "creating" and "ending" a life? Because changing your mind here, effectively kills someone as surely as pushing a knife through his throat and severing his spine, it is really YOUR choice and no one else's that will end this life, yet you say you're not responsible in this case... It's fascinating...

    What if I were to argue that creating a life condemns it to death? What would your counter be?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited April 19
    @BrandyKnight

    You say ...... Our laws contradict each other and abortion 99% of the time is a selfish act performed to not wrinkle or discomfort someone's life.

    My reply ....That’s a sweeping generalization regarding it being a “selfish act” , how do you know each and every personal story regarding why a woman would choose this path?

    You say .....It is not based on women's rights to their bodies nor does it have anything to do with reproductive rights, period. 

    My reply ......By ending your statement with “period “ is the equivalent of stamping your foot and proclaiming “l’m right  so there” not very mature is it?

    Of course it’s based on a woman’s choice to have autonomy over her own body what gives you the right to lecture and tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?

    Why should an unborn fetuses alleged right to life trump the rights of a woman over her own body?
  •  My apologies. I was in a hurry and only included rapes in my percentage number. medically necessary abortions make up around 24% so I should have posted 75% instead of 99%. Thank you for catching that. However, that is not a judgmental statement. It is a factual statement.

     I am confused about your argument concerning women's rights. I happen to whole heartedly agree that we should have the right have sex or not. We should have the right to get pregnant or not. There is nothing in my statement that says otherwise. Again though, using common logic, a woman who becomes pregnant not by rape has voluntarily exercised her right to do with her body what she wanted, That is then the decision is made, not after the fact. She chose to engage in behavior that produced another life. No one forced her nor did they keep her from exercising that right. 

     A fetus has to use the body parts of the person who created it. A fetus did not take over control of her body. She made a choice that created it and is thereafter responsible for it. Responsibility is missing from all of the arguments. 

    Finally, my point, again, is not to be pro abortion or anti abortion. My point is that we have laws that contradict each other when it comes to the protection of the unborn and they need to be fixed.  @Plaffelvohfen
  •  My apologies. I was in a hurry and only included rapes in my percentage number. medically necessary abortions make up around 24% so I should have posted 75% instead of 99%. Thank you for catching that. However, that is not a judgmental statement. It is a factual statement.

     I am confused about your argument concerning women's rights. I happen to whole heartedly agree that we should have the right have sex or not. We should have the right to get pregnant or not. There is nothing in my statement that says otherwise. Again though, using common logic, a woman who becomes pregnant not by rape has voluntarily exercised her right to do with her body what she wanted, That is then the decision is made, not after the fact. She chose to engage in behavior that produced another life. No one forced her nor did they keep her from exercising that right. 

     A fetus has to use the body parts of the person who created it. A fetus did not take over control of her body. She made a choice that created it and is thereafter responsible for it. Responsibility is missing from all of the arguments. 

    Finally, my point, again, is not to be pro abortion or anti abortion. My point is that we have laws that contradict each other when it comes to the protection of the unborn and they need to be fixed.  @Plaffelvohfen
  • @BrandyKnight

    You're repeating the same answer to different questions now? How does this address my last intervention in any way? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  •  @Plaffelvohfen ;  My apologies. I thought I covered everything generally but I am happy to break it down. Just keep in mind that my argument is not pro life or pro choice. My argument sticks to basic, though sometimes uncomfortable facts. My problem is with the dishonesty and whitewashing of the truth. 

    That’s a sweeping generalization regarding it being a “selfish act” , how do you know each and every personal story regarding why a woman would choose this path?

     It is not a sweeping generalization at all. Barring rape and medical necessity, all other reasons have to do with the personal situations and issues of the creator. Reasons including, but not limited to, being too young; being too poor; having too many children already; being unmarried; career issues, etc... Those are the stories. 

     ending your statement with “period “ is the equivalent of stamping your foot and proclaiming “l’m right  so there” not very mature is it?

      No it is not immature it is fact by definition. Think about what you are saying. A reproductive right is the right to reproduce. If a woman is pregnant she already exercised that right.  No one prevented her from reproducing nor did they force her to produce. 

     Of course it’s based on a woman’s choice to have autonomy over her own body what gives you the right to lecture and tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?
      
     I agree that a woman has autonomy over her own body. Just like I have repeated over and over again. The disagreement is the timing. Once you choose to exercise your rights you are responsible for the outcome. In our situation, the outcome created another life. A life that did not invade her body against her free will. This is life created by her not forced upon her. 
      And I have not lectured anyone, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I would just like for people to speak the truth and give reasons that are honest and not twisted to form excuses. She does not need an excuse if she feels it is the right thing to do and neither should you. Those regurgitated  reasons that have been given for decades do not hold water now and never have so why bother to try and use them? 
     
      Get our laws on the same page one way or another.  
     
      
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 441 Pts
    edited April 19
    @BrandyKnight

    This last reply is an answer to @Dee not to me... It still doesn't address my last intervention... I'll reiterate:

    You're argument about contradicting laws is an argument about the legal system, not abortion... The "beginning of life moment" is also irrelevant, personhood is the legal pivot, not life... Personhood legally begins at birth, Roe v Wade: "the unborn have never been recognized as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. That's why so many laws in anti-abortionist states get overruled by the SCOTUS...

    Now, the "beginning of life moment" can be a moral pivot sure, but not a legal one and therefore is a personal choice. And like it or not, whether it's your case or not, the overwhelming majority of "pro-life" supporters are pushing a religious agenda in secular and legal matters breaching the separation of Church and State and must be opposed.  
    There is nothing remotely similar about creating a life and choosing to end it and volunteering to share an organ then changing your mind. One is responsible for the life of another, one is not . 
    So, you're making a distinction between responsibility for "creating" and "ending" a life? Because changing your mind here, effectively kills someone as surely as pushing a knife through his throat and severing his spine, it is really YOUR choice and no one else's that will end this life, yet you say you're not responsible in this case... It's fascinating... 

    What if I were to argue that creating a life condemns it to death? What would your counter be?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  •  You're argument about contradicting laws is an argument about the legal system, not abortion... The "beginning of life moment" is also irrelevant, personhood is the legal pivot, not life... Personhood legally begins at birth, Roe v Wade: "the unborn have never been recognized as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. That's why so many laws in anti-abortionist states get overruled by the SCOTUS.

     
    The thread is about abortion and the legal system  and my responses are as well. You are making this about abortion being right or wrong. Also, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the states. 38 states recognize and legally protect the unborn. 

     I will not address again your made up situation. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever.  

     And I completely agree that creating life ultimately condemns it death. That is a fact. 

     Take a deep breath. I am attacking no one. I am just pointing out obvious cracks in the legal system when it comes to the abortion question. There is no emotion necessary. 

  •  
    The thread is about abortion and the legal system  and my responses are as well. You are making this about abortion being right or wrong. Also, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the states. 38 states recognize and legally protect the unborn. 

     I will not address again your made up situation. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever.  

     And I completely agree that creating life ultimately condemns it death. That is a fact. 

     Take a deep breath. I am attacking no one. I am just pointing out obvious cracks in the legal system when it comes to the abortion question. There is no emotion necessary. 
    But of course I'm ultimately making it about abortion being right or wrong, that's the reason there is any need for debating about legislating it... It's also the basis of your argument about the responsibility for a life one creates... My original argument about bodily autonomy still stands; By saying a fetus has a right to someone's body parts until it's born, despite the pregnant person's wishes, you're doing 2 things...

    1: Granting a fetus more rights to other people's body part than any born person.
    2: Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse. 

    And even if one bestows a moral responsibility for a life, through the act of "creation", as you suggested, it is still irrelevant to the bodily autonomy principle, it does not even address it... Those laws in those 38 states, they could make sense in cases where someone willfully cause an unwanted abortion, because in each of those cases the pregnant person was giving continuous consent to the presence of the fetus, and willfully terminating the pregnancy against the will to give birth, is going against her reproductive freedom to begin with. But when those laws allows the prosecution of a woman for miscarrying, they are ill-conceived...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @kevin_burke

    Roe v Wade, has already answered your question.
  • i'm going to be a hypocrite here, this one of those issues i agre with contitutionalists on, this sint a democracy, t isnt a pure democracy there are just some issues that are persponal and the majority and the govt  need to butt out this is a privacy rights issue beyond the democratic perview.. that said i think most americas are opposed to making abortion illegal 


    Poll Shows Most Americans Favor Limits on Abortion

    COMMENTARY
    January 18, 2019
    Poll Shows Most Americans Favor Limits on Abortion
    AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    For more than a decade, the annual Marist poll on abortion has found that the overwhelming majority of Americans – usually three-quarters or more – want abortion restricted to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy.

    Sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, this annual survey has also highlighted the following fact: Using polling questions that measure the labels Americans choose for themselves – such as pro-choice – will not actually reveal what they want in terms of abortion policy. While the majority of those who identify as pro-life can reliably be expected to support restrictions on abortion, so can most of those who identify as pro-choice.

    In some years, including this one, more Americans may identify as pro-choice than pro-life, but more than six in 10 of those who say they are pro-choice (61 percent) join the three-quarters of all Americans in wanting abortion restricted to – again, at most – the first trimester. So do about six in 10 Democrats (59 percent), eight in 10 independents (78 percent) and nine in 10 Republicans (92 percent).

    By giving the American people greater choice in the questions the Marist poll asks, and by asking about policy options rather than focusing on the labels, this survey has been able to build a more accurate measure of what they really want on abortion policy.

    This year, we also found that the same holds true of opinions on how the Supreme Court should rule when it revisits Roe v. Wade. Recent polls that ask whether Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld or overturned report that Americans support the 1973 decision. But when you ask Americans how they think the court should rule on abortion – and don’t use the Roe label –  everything changes.

    Almost two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) say they want the Supreme Court to revisit Roe in a substantial way. This includes 16 percent who want the court to rule that abortion should be illegal, and about half (49 percent) who say that restrictions should be allowed as determined by each state. Restoring a state-based system would, in fact, overturn Roe – as would a ban on abortion. So nearly two-thirds want the court to rule to allow restrictions that would de facto overturn that decision.

    Fewer than a third (30 percent) want the court to allow unrestricted abortion.

    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited April 20
    @BrandyKnight

    You say ......

     It is not a sweeping generalization at all. Barring rape and medical necessity, all other reasons have to do with the personal situations and issues of the creator.

    My reply .....There you go thats the sweeping generalization I talked about you on your lofty moral throne deem what’s right and wrong for each woman all because you say so.

    Why would be ok when it comes to rape?

    You say .....Reasons including, but not limited to, being too young; being too poor; having too many children already; being unmarried; career issues, etc... Those are the stories. 

    My reply ..... So you would prefer a child to be born to a mother that didn’t want it or a life of abject poverty?

     
     You say ..... No it is not immature it is fact by definition.

    My reply ....So you keep saying all because you say so 

    You say......Think about what you are saying. A reproductive right is the right to reproduce.

    My reply .....What’s that got to do with a woman having a right to bodily autonomy?

    You say ..... If a woman is pregnant she already exercised that right.

    My reply .....The woman has every right to change her mind 

     You say ...... No one prevented her from reproducing nor did they force her to produce. 

    My reply .....But you want to prevent her legally from aborting as you feel you have a perfect right to tell a stranger what to do regarding their choice 

     
    You say .... I agree that a woman has autonomy over her own body. Just like I have repeated over and over again. The disagreement is the timing. Once you choose to exercise your rights you are responsible for the outcome. In our situation, the outcome created another life. A life that did not invade her body against her free will. This is life created by her not forced upon her. 

    My reply ....Circumstances change financial and relationships over time the reasons are many and varied do you think women do it for fun? Women give this issue considerable thought ( mostly ) before making this choice .

    Why should a fetus and its alleged “rights” trump those of a woman? You ignored this question in my last post.

    You say .....And I have not lectured anyone, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I would just like for people to speak the truth and give reasons that are honest and not twisted to form excuses. She does not need an excuse if she feels it is the right thing to do and neither should you. Those regurgitated  reasons that have been given for decades do not hold water now and never have so why bother to try and use them? 

    My reply .....Where I live it’s legal and no woman has to or would give an excuse for their decision.

    Abortion is used to prevent a child being born so is contraception are you ok with contraception?
     
    You say .....  Get our laws on the same page one way or another.  

    My reply .....I thought it was legal in the U S?

    Will you put my name in when replying your last reply was to @Plaffelvohfen
     
  • Polls show most of the World does not understand intellectual forms of admission to crime. The civil accusation of malpractice states Pregnancy abortion is a public admission to crime. The whole debate is over an admission which needed to be constitutional restructured in its wording so it would not be self-incriminating to crime before legislation exposed it to the public. Pregnancy Abortion is Unconstitutional in a whole truth it was created before a United State of Constitution was created for the people. It is Unamerican.

    The reasons Pregnancy abortion is a crime there is more than one wrong being performed publicly by its practice and only one wrong is admitted then possibly justified. Roe Versus Wade describes the admission of guilt made by woman as a loss of privacy. It in no ways approves any malpractice of law or medicine.

    Woman, law , and the medical profession as a United state are telling a lie. Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion. The united state of pregnancy abortion occurs with a man and woman when the do not abort a woman’s ovulation, by use of pregnancy to stop or prolong a life already started.

  • A civil law malpractice takes shape as grievance when a choice is presented publicly as admission or accusation to a crime in basic principle is the legal professional choice a woman makes.


  • As for the cost of civil intrusion and loss of privacy for all woman as an untied state. It took place when sexual assault became a justification for an admission to murder. This basic principle changes the sexual assault to attempted murder, and is placed on all men as a united state creating them equal in the burden of this described death that is said to take place. By the legal, medical profession, and woman. The highlight a additional grievance the medical profession actively participates but does not admit it undertakings of Pregnancy abortion in whole truth. It is left to the burden of being proven with the introduction of human egg and sperm donation.


  • @dee ;
     You keep trying to make this thread about whether abortion is morally right or morally wrong and making unfounded, biased accusations. No one wants to hear someone point out the truth because apparently people become insanely defensive even when they are not being attacked.
    The thread is about the legality of abortions in states in this country. Now I will pose my direct question to you and see if your dance around it continues or that you have points actually based on something besides emotion.

    . Should there be legal abortions allowed in states that have fetal homicide laws?  If yes, why? 
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