Should Abortion Be Legal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

By RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
In my opinion, Abortion should not be legal, but before I say anything I can't take back I want to know what the public thinks.
  1. Live Poll

    Should Abortion Be Legal?

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      50.00%
    2. No
      50.00%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    I believe that abortion is bad because of multiple reasons, my main reason is that you are killing an innocent child that could live and be in a happy loving family. The adoption process is an option and it has worked out for many people. But killing a human being just because you don't want to take responsibility for what happened and you are scared. Why doesn't that child you are carrying have fewer rights than you? They are alive. If abortion is not Murder than Killing a pregnant woman should be not 2 but 1 count of manslaughter.
    YeshuaRedeemedApplesaucePlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    RyanHough said:
    In my opinion, Abortion should not be legal, but before I say anything I can't take back I want to know what the public thinks.

    I would just like to address your question in basic principle. Are all woman guilty of a crime if all woman make a confession to the same kind of crime?


    RyanHough
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    @John_C_87 ;I believe that abortion is indeed murder and a woman who kills a man should be held accountable the same as a woman who aborts a child is. Sadly since the new laws say that abortion is legal this is not the case. To answer your question yes if all women make a confession to a crime they are all guilty if proven. This is just for debate reasons but if I shot a child and they are dead should I be charged with murder? Now if I stabbed a woman in the stomach killing a child they are carrying but the woman does not die should I be charged with murder? 
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    You believe the woman is telling the truth on behalf of all woman . In order for your belief to be true you need to believe the woman who admits to receiving a pregnancy abortion is speaking on behalf of all woman. First of all she is not.

    1.This is just for debate reasons but if I shot a child and they are dead should I be charged with murder?

    2.
    Now if I stabbed a woman in the stomach killing a child they are carrying but the woman does not die should I be charged with murder?  

    The comparison is off you were not making a self-incriminating admission.
    I shot a child and woman they are dead should I be charged with murder? yes.
    I stabbed a woman in the stomach killing a child she is carrying but the woman does not die should I be charged with murder?  Yes. You do not share the united state the woman does with all other woman who are pregnant, and who may be capable to become pregnant. This United state can then be used in a way that creates all woman as equal, all woman perform a pregnancy abortion by failing to become pregnant as result of ovulation. They, woman who ovulate, are in truth murdering a child every time this happens which is about 12 times a year. 

    When picking one murder out by the truth made on officially stopping the life that has started, this is regardless of whole truth. When woman start admitting in whole truth to pregnancy abortions after saying no to sexual relationship demonstrating her authority over life this is a truth. On either side of united state the woman's burden of lethal force does not waver.

    I must also advise of a common defense to the general welfare of United State Constitution. Female Specific Amputation is not abortion and would be curtail in representation of woman in the United state of Armed Serves in Military order.
  • TKDBTKDB 135 Pts
    Adoption is an alternative to abortion.
    Zombieguy1987
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    TKDB said:
    Adoption is an alternative to abortion.

    Realistically adoption isn’t an alternative to pregnancy abortion though not wrong it is not right as united state. In basic principle the way a pregnancy abortion take place are.

    1.       A woman or man will decline to have sexual intercourse.

    2.       A woman and/or man will donate sperm or egg to scientific research.

    3.       A female specific amputation takes place.

    Adoption by basic principle.

    A child who is born without legal guardian is made a property of the state; the property is then released as a form of legal slave to the public or ages out as adult. Maintaining the legal slave is either a paid proposition by direct payment to the assigned guardian or is an indirect proposition in which taxation reduction is to be the motivation with emotional attachment.

    Adoption is not an alternative to officially stopping a human life that has been recognized as beginning.

    1.       Any woman who ovulated is still having a pregnancy abortion and simply does not admit this as a crime publicly.

    2.       A woman can still be sacrificed in a murder on behalf of a child. Child birth is a risk and a application of lethal force in its creation of posterity. The refusal of Female specific amputation places the burden of risk on those who make a denial on that request under general welfare of life. Whereas "Husband" is licensed by state to assume the power of attorney on behalf of the a woman to except the will and desire she alone holds to pay cost of the child, or not.

    3.       A child can still be sacrificed in a murder on behalf of a woman. The refusal of Female specific amputation places the burden of risk on those who make a denial on that request under general welfare of life.

    The state of the union of woman and reproduction in a united state is to create all woman as equal in basic principle and legal precedent.

    In whole truth adoption is an alterative to a limited number of Female specific amputations.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    RyanHough said:
    @John_C_87 ;I believe that abortion is indeed murder and a woman who kills a man should be held accountable the same as a woman who aborts a child is. Sadly since the new laws say that abortion is legal this is not the case. To answer your question yes if all women make a confession to a crime they are all guilty if proven. This is just for debate reasons but if I shot a child and they are dead should I be charged with murder? Now if I stabbed a woman in the stomach killing a child they are carrying but the woman does not die should I be charged with murder? 

    The idea of murder is a strong principle. To address this notion in basic principle a female specific amputation cannot be in truth a murder as the victim who is lost from posterity is unknown by the individual woman who must make the call on behalf of a future. A woman can not be a serial killer murdering a stranger as she up until this point has been allowed to kill all of that child's brother and sisters without objection. The argument of law is who is, and who is not holding all woman as created equal by grievance filed against United States Constitution.
  • TKDBTKDB 135 Pts
    edited May 15
    Other than adoption, birth control is another option to utilize as well? 

    Both, male, and female, birth control?
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    Adoption is not by basic principle a control over the birth of a baby, and when children are sold to couples outside the protected principles of genetic parent it is a form of slavery. Which is not to exist any more as laws prohibit slavery as a trade in the united states.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts

    The idea of slavery held by interpretation of amendment of constitutional principle must be addresses correctly on basic principle of POW status. Meaning the 13 amendment is either an article of the 1st amendment by reform of religious liberties. Or and article of the 5th Amendment in relationship to due process of reprteatation to united state by basic principle and legal precedent.

    Contraception, female specific amputation, and pregnancy abortions made by men and woman before the egg’s life is made longer by fertilization are all state that limits childbirth and can be placed in a union. To then be addressed as a state of the union.

  • TKDBTKDB 135 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Where's your legitimate, and real world evidence, to support this statement from you?

    "and when children are sold to couples outside the protected principles of genetic parent it is a form of slavery. Which is not to exist any more as laws prohibit slavery as a trade in the united states."
  • It definitively should be legal everywhere but alternatives could be encouraged... 

    My main argument is bodily autonomy/integrity, which is 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! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    @TKDB ;

    Where's your legitimate, and real world evidence, to support this statement from you? Justice does not hold a United State with Criminal intent and human retribution TKDB. Justice is at liberty to be applied in a ongoing pursuit to tranquility and Happiness in formation of a more perfect union.

    I am not addressing a criminal accusation this is a truth to address an existing state of the union created under constitutional basic principle between adoption and human pregnancy, there was never a clear distinction made between a Prisoner of War then sold into private hands, with the forced birthing of a child by woman under order of law, the child then made a salve by interpretation of law not basic United States Constitutional address. There is nothing to cite, as precedent it is just a hidden way to keep slavery alive and out of the general view of the population.



  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    It definitively should be legal everywhere but alternatives could be encouraged... 
    Not as a united state written into law the term abortion by basic principle describes a crime under all condition and is not true. 

    A woman's autonomy is a good justification as a idea of self-defense in connection to any admission/accusation a woman may have made. It simply does not create a desired equality between all woman who can in whole truth become pregnant. To form a liberty and justice for all the idea of defending the woman from crime must be abandoned. To understand the criminal possibility is human, the legislation in governing does not need this personal association to be linked to truth and whole truth. The legislation is to assemble an impartial dialog setting all woman as created equal before the world. This is a big call as a job description.
  • TKDBTKDB 135 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Are you maybe an ex attorney, or a former law professor? 

    Because you seem to express, the same self expressed rhetoric for seemingly all of your counter arguments? 

    "Justice does not hold a United State with Criminal intent and human retribution TKDB. Justice is at liberty to be applied in a ongoing pursuit to tranquility and Happiness in formation of a more perfect union.

    I am not addressing a criminal accusation this is a truth to address an existing state of the union created under constitutional basic principle between adoption and human pregnancy, there was never a clear distinction made between a Prisoner of War then sold into private hands, with the forced birthing of a child by woman under order of law, the child then made a salve by interpretation of law not basic United States Constitutional address. There is nothing to cite, as precedent it is just a hidden way to keep slavery alive and out of the general view of the population."

  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    John_C_87 said:

    The idea of murder is a strong principle. To address this notion in basic principle a female specific amputation cannot be in truth a murder as the victim who is lost from posterity is unknown by the individual woman who must make the call on behalf of a future. A woman can not be a serial killer murdering a stranger as she up until this point has been allowed to kill all of that child's brother and sisters without objection. The argument of law is who is, and who is not holding all woman as created equal by grievance filed against United States Constitution.

    Adoption is not by basic principle a control over the birth of a baby, and when children are sold to couples outside the protected principles of genetic parent it is a form of slavery. Which is not to exist any more as laws prohibit slavery as a trade in the united states.
    Do you truly believe that adoption is slavery because I am an adopted and I love my "Owners" as you visualize them. They are my parents I love them, I was taken from my family at age 2 and it was the best thing that happened in my life. Do you think people should have the liberty to "Relieve" a person from life? That child should have just as many rights as you, me, anyone. Women should not be able to choose if a child lives or dies. As the majority has already shown, Abortion should be illegal, mostly because our generation is less responsible than any generation and we should not be at liberty to choose in these situations. Your argument to me and probably many others means nothing. It's a desperate attempt to sway others opinions. sorry but i have no time to deal with you and your feelings because i have a life that needs to be tended to. 
  • I think it should in some cases, even if it is a human life. I was raped when I was 22, and Alabama can kiss my blank.
  • @TKDB Birth control can fail, and rape happens. What if the mother was raped?
  • @TKDB Not for rape victims.
  • @RyanHough @RyanHough I'll kill anything that uses MY body without my consent.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    Adoption is not slavery and yall need to actually learn all parts of this argument and not just focus on yours. If adoption is slavery then I am a slave and I like it. Just because you heard a few stories advertised by the news doesn't make you an expert. You say adoption is bad, its not, i know this because I live it. Because of my blood relatives, I had problems with my kidneys not being treated and I was never in one home with 2 parents. Id never ask for anything other than what happened to me. I'm adopted and proud of it.
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    So would you kill a child in your womb @YeshuaRedeemed?

  • @RyanHough You are not a slave, but you support reproductive slavery, if you would force a rape surivor to give birth.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    @YeshuaRedeemed There are pills that stop a woman from becoming pregnant without killing a child that another family wants. I would not force them to do anything. They can do what they want, I just want to advise them otherwise. You know nothing of other peoples backgrounds, yet you insinuate such things as of my beliefs and what I support, I am just stating simple facts. Yet again people look into the simple things and not all aspects. 
  • @RyanHough Answer my question: What if the mother was raped? The unwanted use of my reproductive organs without my consent by the government is rape. I was RAPED, and I am NOT an effing incubator!
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    @YeshuaRedeemed, If the mother was raped then they should do what they see fit. In my opinion, give birth to the child and give it to a loving and caring family that will care for it. Do you think I believe that you are an incubator, because if I did say so please tell me. I feel sorry for you that that unfortunate thing happened to you. But I believe that if you conceive a child at any time it should have the same rights as another human being. Women ask for the same rights as men, Babies should have those rights too. Is that answer good enough for you?
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • @RyanHough You don't have the right to my body. This is MY body, and what happens to my body, is my right to choose. Only a rapist would expect a rape victim to give birth.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    @YeshuaRedeemed, ugh :triumph: even when I try to be nice about it you always take the victim route, also you don't have to dislike everything I say, listen I never said I or anyone has a right to your body. I'm getting nowhere with you and you seem Uncompilable to even comprehend my statements so I will just mute you. If you truly have a choice in everything that happens to your body then why were you raped? You cant play victim because you know nothing about my life as i know nothing about your life. You know nothing of what i have been through, what I've been accused of, yet you don't see me play the victim card. Yet you rage online like you have to do this because you feel like you need to speak about it. Well instead of ranting how about you talk to a professional and piss them off instead of me. Good Day. Hope you don't speak behind my back to your group of friends about a 15-year-old telling you off, because you'll DEFINITELY make a complete fool of yourself
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 234 Pts
    edited May 16
    When is a life a life?  Some current laws draw a line at a heart beat, while others don't seem to draw one at at all.  I assume those who participate in this thread are knowledgeable about the subject so I don't feel the need to explain what should already be known to those who make informed opinions rather than ignorant ones.
    When a surgical procedure must be done in utero anesthetic is given to both the female and the baby, for obvious reasons.  With current advancements in medicine babies can be born earlier than their due date and do just fine.
    the age old questions

    @RyanHough you may wish to consider muting certain people, I've muted TKDB I don't see his posts or replies, it's a very nice feature.
    Plaffelvohfen
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    @RyanHough ;
    So in truth are you just saying slavery is not all bad?

    You do understand we do not get the child's consent to be born as a parent?

  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    @RyanHough ;
    So in truth are you just saying slavery is not all bad?

    You do understand we do not get the child's consent to be born as a parent?

  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    TKDB said:
    @John_C_87

    Are you maybe an ex attorney, or a former law professor? 

    Because you seem to express, the same self expressed rhetoric for seemingly all of your counter arguments? 

    "Justice does not hold a United State with Criminal intent and human retribution TKDB. Justice is at liberty to be applied in a ongoing pursuit to tranquility and Happiness in formation of a more perfect union.

    I am not addressing a criminal accusation this is a truth to address an existing state of the union created under constitutional basic principle between adoption and human pregnancy, there was never a clear distinction made between a Prisoner of War then sold into private hands, with the forced birthing of a child by woman under order of law, the child then made a salve by interpretation of law not basic United States Constitutional address. There is nothing to cite, as precedent it is just a hidden way to keep slavery alive and out of the general view of the population."

    They are all based on representing the United states constitution. They are connected the arguments make a pathway to a missing basic principle or two that did not become recognized in basic principle under constitutional law.

    Do you still believe you lack the experience to create all woman as equal under legal precedent? In the name of liberty and justice for all, removing a self-incrimination from one of many hard to prove crime, we get change female specific amputation from descriptions like Pregnancy abortion. The name of the basic principal has been change to protect the innocent not to exploit them.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    @RyanHough You don't have the right to my body. This is MY body, and what happens to my body, is my right to choose. Only a rapist would expect a rape victim to give birth.

    It is a little more complicate than just that. Woman have been by choice placed in a Congregational Armed Service, which then can become a Presidential Armed Service. Unwittingly all woman's right to autonomism control to there body was forfeit. All Right. Rape can be described a weapon of combat, prior to entry and was understood as part of the risk, therefor female specific amputation is used to remove the possible cause to death. Like previously  mentioned pregnancy by sexual assault is not rape it is attempted murder in basic principle.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    When did this become a thing about slavery, Abortion has nothing to do with slavery, Slavery does not exist. 
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    John_C_87 said:
    @RyanHough ;
    So in truth are you just saying slavery is not all bad?

    You do understand we do not get the child's consent to be born as a parent?

    Well, I would say that even if a child is in the womb it still wants to exist. By your arguments, I'm guessing you are of no religion? 

    The funny thing is I just wanted to see all sides of this debate, instead, I got a jumble of people who are all idiots who just want what they think is best, not what would be best for the majority. This argument also had people like @YeshuaRedeemed who just yell at me for debate and its quite annoying. I was hoping to get logical and well-rounded ANSWERS, not questions asking me to answer my own question.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    RyanHough said:
    When did this become a thing about slavery, Abortion has nothing to do with slavery, Slavery does not exist. 
    With adoption as a alternative to pregnancy termination.
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    Adoption isnt slavery either
  • John_C_87John_C_87 106 Pts
    RyanHough said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @RyanHough ;
    So in truth are you just saying slavery is not all bad?

    You do understand we do not get the child's consent to be born as a parent?


    The funny thing is I just wanted to see all sides of this debate, instead, I got a jumble of people who are all idiots who just want what they think is best, not what would be best for the majority. This argument also had people like @YeshuaRedeemed who just yell at me for debate and its quite annoying. I was hoping to get logical and well-rounded ANSWERS, not questions asking me to answer my own question.

    A majority is not a United State and its overall numerical value is made less important with the addition of truth. We have been arguing this debate quite some time so the differences we all have are getting to be over a wider understanding of problems. Try not to become frustrated take a break if needed. 



  • @RyanHough
    This is just for debate reasons but if I shot a child and they are dead should I be charged with murder?
    Now if I stabbed a woman in the stomach killing a child they are carrying but the woman does not die should I be charged with murder? 
    If you shot a child, yes you should be charged with murder...
    If you stab a woman in the stomach ending a pregnancy, you should be charged with attempted murder but the fact that there was a pregnancy should not add another murder charge but rather be an aggravating factor that could warrant an additional 5-25+ years in jail... It cannot be "murder" because you can only murder a person, and fetuses are not persons...  
    If abortion is not Murder than Killing a pregnant woman should be not 2 but 1 count of manslaughter.
    This is only true in some states, so it's not really a valid argument in regard to abortion in itself, no? If it was true everywhere ok but it's not... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 309 Pts
    Abortion should be legal a woman should have the right to decide as its her body , why should the fetus be granted a right while denying a woman a right to bodily autonomy? Why does any implied right of the fetus trump that of the woman?



    A fetus is there by permission granted by the woman this permission may be withdrawn at her will anything else is tyranny.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RyanHoughRyanHough 66 Pts
    No, anything else is logical. I dont believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy. That is murder. That is my opinion and it will not change, y'all can think what you want but my opinion is final.
  • RyanHough said:
    No, anything else is logical. I dont believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy. That is murder. That is my opinion and it will not change, y'all can think what you want but my opinion is final.
    You're entitled to your opinion just like everybody, but aren't we here to debate if arguments for X or Y are sounds or not, aren't we? This is not "opinion island"... 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 309 Pts
    @RyanHough

    You say .... I dont believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy.

    My reply .....Yes , you’ve said 

    You say ......That is murder.

    My reply ....It’s not 

    You say ....That is my opinion and it will not change, y'all can think what you want but my opinion is final.

    My reply .....What are you doing on a debate site?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 234 Pts
    @Dee

    Dee said:

    Abortion should be legal a woman should have the right to decide as its her body , why should the fetus be granted a right while denying a woman a right to bodily autonomy? Why does any implied right of the fetus trump that of the woman?

    very simple really human life > all  generally speaking
    rights come into conflict all the time and someone will have their rights while the other will not if they both can't be accommodated.
    really this is very simple.
    no matter what right you claim to have none of them gives you the right to murder another human (self defense is not murder so don't bother trying that nonsense)

    we have property rights, true?  Look up some cases where people used deadly force to protect their property rather than self defense.
    I'll give you some help  https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/protection-of-property
    "It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."

    so when it comes to the death/killing of another human being only the right to self defense matters, no other rights you think you have matter.

    this is why no one wants to define a time when a baby is a baby or human, that should be obvious now if it wasn't already. 
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce

    So, say for example that I need a kidney transplant or I'll die and it happens that you're the only one with a compatible kidney, if you don't agree to give me one I'll definitely die... Are you saying I would be justified to force you to give me your kidney whether you want to or not?  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 234 Pts
    @Applesauce

    So, say for example that I need a kidney transplant or I'll die and it happens that you're the only one with a compatible kidney, if you don't agree to give me one I'll definitely die... Are you saying I would be justified to force you to give me your kidney whether you want to or not?  

    you would not be justified because I'm not murdering you or knowingly causing your death.  you are talking about saving a life vs taking a life

    However if someone were to do something that purposefully puts another in the situation you describe, if they are compatible I would say yes they must give up a kidney because they were a direct cause as to why the other person lost theirs and needs one to save their life.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 303 Pts
    edited May 16
    @Applesauce

    If you're are the only compatible donor and you refuse, you will knowingly cause my death...

    Say someone trips and fall off a bridge (they are really unlucky...), this person barely holds on by one hand, I happen to pass by, would I be to blame if I did nothing and this person died? I'm not the one who placed him in that situation after all, how is that any different?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 234 Pts
    @Applesauce

    If you're are the only compatible donor and you refuse, you will knowingly cause my death...

    Say someone trips and fall off a bridge (they are really unlucky...), this person barely holds on by one hand, I happen to pass by, would I be to blame if I did nothing and this person died? I'm not the one who placed him in that situation after all, how is that any different?
    not if I didn't cause your condition, your condition is causing your death and I'm letting you die by not giving you a kidney, still not murder

    you did not put that person in their predicament that is true, you have no obligation.

    let's say this person managed to grab a rope, your rope, you would not be justified in cutting it or taking it way such that it would cause their death, right?  Because their right to life is > property, inconvenience, pretty much everything else.  Do you agree that it should be that way?  You steal my hat should I be able to shoot you in the back as you run away to get my hat back?
    there is no higher value placed on anything that I can think of than a human life, do you disagree?
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • DeeDee 309 Pts
    @Applesauce

    You say ......very simple really human life > all  generally speaking

    My reply .....You dodged , I asked why the implied right of the fetus trumps the right of the woman?

    You say ......rights come into conflict all the time and someone will have their rights while the other will not if they both can't be accommodated.
    really this is very simple.

    My reply .....But in this case you wish to deny someone as in the woman their right to bodily autonomy , really it’s very simple 

    You say .....no matter what right you claim to have none of them gives you the right to murder another human (self defense is not murder so don't bother trying that nonsense)

    My reply .....It’s not murder , why aren’t women who abort given life imprisonment for murder if that’s the case?

    You say .....we have property rights, true?  Look up some cases where people used deadly force to protect their property rather than self defense.
    I'll give you some help  https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/protection-of-property

    My reply ......I’m not talking about property do try and keep up will you. It’s you need all the help you can get.

    You say ....."It is important to remember that deadly force can never be used simply to defend property against someone else’s interference with that property, even if that interference is unlawful and even if there is no other way to prevent that interference."

    My reply .....Why are you bleating on about property rights?

    You say ......when it comes to the death/killing of another human being only the right to self defense matters, no other rights you think you have matter.

    My reply .....Thanks for your opinion is that your argument?

    You say ....this is why no one wants to define a time when a baby is a baby or human, that should be obvious now if it wasn't already. 

    My reply ....What should be obvious?
  • @Applesauce

    With regards to human life value, I don't think they are all equally valuable... But compared to a car or the likes, sure... But death is a part of life, I could say that giving birth is in fact condemning someone to die, weird but not false...

    Now you say I'd be under no obligation to save the person hanging from the bridge, what about the laws about non-assistance to someone in danger (Duty to rescue) ? In many places, it would warrant manslaughter charges but to be fair, I don't think it (Duty to rescue) exists in the US, not surprising really... So ok, I'll refrain from using this argument as it doesn't matter in the US...

    But what is your view on the bodily autonomy principle? To reiterate...

    Bodily autonomy/integrity, which is usually considered a human right, 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. 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
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