frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





Abortion isn't okay no matter what

Debate Information

personally we all know that people are going to start talking about rape. it is a horrible horrible thing but it's not the baby that did it, just because someone does a wrong to you doesn't mean you have to do wrong. abortion is murder and the worse part is the baby can't do anything. just because u can see the child doesn't mean it's not living. a HEARTBEAT means LIFE. what's death? when the heartbeat stops. what's living when there is a heartbeat
AlofRIjesusisGod777KdCuber대왕광개토PlaffelvohfenScienceRulesLiamThePersonOakTownAjustanny5791Thesmartblondeand 5 others.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    I think that abortion is ok no matter what... My position is as valid as yours... 
    DeeMayCaesarKdCuberZombieguy1987ScienceRulesTheLiberatorTreeManOakTownALuigi7255Foxlady76
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 5401 Pts   -  
    Denying a woman the right to bodily autonomy isn’t ok no matter what 
    AlofRIKdCuberPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987ScienceRulesJohn_C_87TreeManOakTownAMrDebatePerson2dallased25
  • personally we all know that people are going to start talking about rape. it is a horrible horrible thing but it's not the baby that did it, just because someone does a wrong to you doesn't mean you have to do wrong. abortion is murder and the worse part is the baby can't do anything. just because u can see the child doesn't mean it's not living. a HEARTBEAT means LIFE. what's death? when the heartbeat stops. what's living when there is a heartbeat

    I don't  accept rape/incest needs to be discussed to justify abortion. I don't accept abortion is murder. I don't accept (by default) a baby/child exists in any womb. I don't accept a heartbeat is the only defining characteristic of life, and especially not personhood (where rights are attached).

    There's not a lot of room for us to find common ground here!

    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIKdCuberScienceRulesTreeManSwolliwOakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6580 Pts   -  
    Strong property rights include the right to own one's body, regardless of what is happening inside it, and a living organism growing there does not override this rule. Abortion and property rights are one and alike, and you cannot have one without the other.

    I find it curious that abortion is very popular among anti-capitalists, who do not believe in property rights and think that the state should decide who can own what, and very unpopular among capitalists, who are supposed to hold property rights dear. It is one of those political anomalies the source of which is hard to trace.
    KdCuberPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987OakTownAOpenminded
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;

    I agree mostly with your first paragraph, the second is a bit hard to take. First of all I don't think abortion is "popular" with many people AT ALL. It is more of a necessary evil to most people. It is a CHOICE, and, MOST often a hard choice. It often considers the burden it will put on those that already have a "life", that need to eat, that need medicine, that are struggling. Maybe those that MUST keep working for those already here. It could be that they themselves just can't take another mouth to feed or that another will be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" as far as the existing family is concerned.

    That's the abortion part. Next is the programmed part about "anti-capitalists". There are a few, I know, that are "radical left wingers" "FEW" being the key word. I don't know of many on the left that could be called "anti-capitalists". The vast majority of Americans WANT successful capitalism, we just don't want capitalism to run the country because THAT would be against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! This country is supposed to be OF, BY, and FOR the PEOPLE, not the corporations! Regulations are largely to protect the PEOPLE (and the country), from being cheated, from being dangerously exploited (bad drugs or dangerous pollution, etc.), as well as , as has been happening mostly since the 80's, corporations taking the government FROM the people. Anybody that thinks we can have a strong country without strong business has mental challenges! Anyone that thinks businesses should make all the rules are JUST as challenged. Russia has a government of businessmen (oligarchs) that do just about as they wish. They are only "regulated" by their "strong leader" … to coin our leader's(?) opinion. Anti-capitalists on the left?? Hogwash! You confuse the reality of anti-oligarchy with necessarily regulated capitalism which could be called anti-GREED.
    excon
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @seriously10

    Rape doesn't justify murder.

    I could care less about feelings.

    If you feel that feelings justify murder, than you would insinuate feelings are a basis for murder.

    Rapes a crime

    So murder.

    Murders not the answer.

    Rapists are horrible.

    So are people who abort.

    There is no moral justification is claiming rape is horrible so murder is a response to a crime that has caused a women to become pregnant.

    Pregnancy is a result of rape.

    Plenty of women have said they are glad they kept a child even though they were raped.

    So some retarted argument that rape justifys abortion is fallacious.

    So is aborting because a mother might not survive.

    Jesus decides who lives and who dies.

    If he decided you'd get pregnant it simply is a test of faith.

    Plenty of people have survived outside a doctor's opinion.

    They call it a practice for a reason.

    Jesus is Lord.

    However if Jesus dictates something else I'm wrong.

    I however am basing the statement on the best information availible.

    Many people have feelings. A lot of those feelings have cause a lot of people problems.

    I don't overvalue feelings and I don't disagree with the fact feelings are important.

    However, a lot of what happens has a bigger story than you know.

    Jesus is Lord.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOneKdCuber대왕광개토Zombieguy1987ScienceRulesOakTownABlastcatdallased25Openminded
  • @jesusisGod777 How do you even know that Jesus dictates our lives(without referring to Bible)?
    KdCuberOakTownA
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    @jesusisGod777

    You know... not everyone lives completely by the Bible. 

    Denying a woman the right to autonomously make decisions about HER body is a crime greater than murder, because you are essentially condemning her to life-long suffering.
    Statistically, it is a fact that children who were born in families where the mother didn't want a baby had much higher suicide rates, as well as mental health disorders. 

    You can't refer to the Bible in this one, society has changed too much.  Thinka bout it, the Bible was written approx 2000 years ago, 2000!
    You can't use a book written millenia ago, when society was TREMENDOUSLY different, in the present society that now allows for gender equality and right to property, and doesn't oppress women. You can't use the Bible for this debate because abortion was hardly a thing when the Bible was written. 
    대왕광개토AlofRIPlaffelvohfenOakTownAOpenminded
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    "Jesus decides who lives and who dies."

    Isn't that just a DISGUSTING statement. Someone believes himself to be so great that he now is omnipotent, can make people suffer beyond anything you have ever experienced, just for FUN? 

    You and your god are if you truly believe that making people suffer and die (sometimes horribly and VERY painfully) is OK. If your god truly were omnipotent and benevolent the great famine in Yemen wouldn't have happened. The Nanking massacre wouldn't have happened, nor the Holocaust. What about the Crusades? Do you truly think God dictated who died and who didn't? 

    Women and children were RAPED in these historical events, do you think God really commanded these actions? Because if he did, then he can go eat my . 
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIcalebsicaOakTownATarikDzinicOpenmindedGiantMan
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    @jesusisGod777 
    "Rape doesn't justify murder."

    Then why is there the death sentence for rape in various countries? 

    "I could care less about feelings."
    But isn't Christianity all about looking into your feelings and finding god? Have you contradicted yourself?

    "If you feel that feelings justify murder, than you would insinuate feelings are a basis for murder."
    Firstly, it's "then", not "than". Than is used for comparatives, whereas then is a conjunction, but back to your claim. 
    Indeed feelings are a basis of murder, why else would someone kill someone else? Most murders (or better, all intentional murders) are driven by emotions, jealousy, anger etc... 

    "Rapes a crime. So murder."
    Probably the only true statement in your post. 

    "Murders not the answer."
    Yet Jesus had to die to save us humans didn't he? Oh..wait XD

    "Rapists are horrible."
    Oh look at that, another sensical argument. Maybe you're not as a drooling fucktard as I thought you to be. 

    "So are people who abort."
    I take that back. 

    "There is no moral justification is claiming rape is horrible so murder is a response to a crime that has caused a women to become pregnant."
    Then why does rape constitute for the death sentence in some countries. Imagine if you were abused, physically assaulted, and then impregnated against your will by a stranger? DO you know how hard it is for pregnant women or mothers to get jobs? You're literally ruining a woman's LIFE. 

    And how about the rape of minors. Imagine being the father of a little 8 year old girl, and one day you lose her at a park. She's been kidnapped, and is being tortured, assaulted and raped. I'd probably go insane just at the thought of this happening. The rapist has emotionally scarred the girl (who will probably commit suicide) and her parents. This is condemning them to life long suffering. The death sentence if anything is too light of a punishment, a rapist should be slowly killed and tortured. 

    "Pregnancy is a result of rape."
    Prengnacy is a result of unprotected coitus. 

    "Plenty of women have said they are glad they kept a child even though they were raped."
    That's because people like you in society are pressuring unwanting parents to feel glad, because otherwise they're seen as "monsters". Disgusting, it's like freedom of speech has disappeared...
    Furthermore, any evidence to back up your claim? I haven't found a single paper reaching your conclusions. 


    "So is aborting because a mother might not survive."
    If a mother isn't going to survive, and dies while still pregnant, the other parent may decide to have a premature pregnancy, or just abort. Those are the two ONLY options.  In the latter case, the fetus dies and that's it.
     If instead the parent resorts to an early pregnancy, well... there are just countless complications that come with it. Firstly, since the mother is oficially dead, the fetus has no source of oxygen, as blood circulation is cut off. The fetus is completely dependent on the mother’s circulation to provide air and food to the placenta. If the maturnal circulations stops, the fetus is completely without oxygen. The fetus can recover completely if it is deprived of oxygen for less than five minutes. It will survive with brain injury for up to ten minutes, After 10 minutes, all bets are off, the baby is either dead or in a vegetative state. In either case disastrous results. 

    So what is better? Killing the fetus then and there, or having a premature pregnancy, see the child die in front of you and/or remain in a vegetative state for the rest of its life? The humane choice is abortion. 

    "Jesus decides who lives and who dies.If he decided you'd get pregnant it simply is a test of faith."

    Isn't that just a DISGUSTING statement. Someone believes himself to be so great that he now is omnipotent, can make people suffer beyond anything you have ever experienced, just for FUN? 

    You and your god are if you truly believe that making people suffer and die (sometimes horribly and VERY painfully) is OK. If your god truly were omnipotent and benevolent the great famine in Yemen wouldn't have happened. The Nanking massacre wouldn't have happened, nor the Holocaust. What about the Crusades? Do you truly think God dictated who died and who didn't? 

    Women and children were RAPED in these historical events, do you think God really commanded these actions? Because if he did, then he can go eat my s h it .

    "I however am basing the statement on the best information availible."
    Where have you found these sources? Any references? 

    I have disproved all your arguments @jesusisGod777

    Abortion is oK. you're just too close-minded and back-minded to agree. 

    Plaffelvohfen대왕광개토ScienceRulesGiantManOpenminded
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It's not their fault...They were just brainwashed by their churches and took religion too literally...
    You can't let a book written millenia ago dictate every aspect of your life in the modern era. 
    Anyone who does so is retarded, and doesn't realise the danger of this approach to life. 

    However, they do constitute a severe danger to society..imagine if they brainwash even more kids ...
    As intellectuals it is our duty to educate radical religiousness...
    Plaffelvohfen대왕광개토Openminded
  • @jesusisGod777 You didn't even answer my question. I asked you a simple question because you often use Bible and other religious stuffs to back up your claim. In addition, prove that what you are saying is the truth without referring to Bible. I sincerely hope that you don't have any mental issue
  • personally we all know that people are going to start talking about rape. it is a horrible horrible thing but it's not the baby that did it, just because someone does a wrong to you doesn't mean you have to do wrong. abortion is murder and the worse part is the baby can't do anything. just because u can see the child doesn't mean it's not living. a HEARTBEAT means LIFE. what's death? when the heartbeat stops. what's living when there is a heartbeat

    No Abortion is not murder it is an official claim to a stop that takes place. This means when a woman is told and agrees with what was told to her that she has a choice in pregnancy abortion she makes a choice to confess to a crime she may not understand by its complex nature.

    Female specific amputation is not a pregnancy abortion. A woman does not ever autonomous control over pregnancy or her body in this relationship. As a united state all woman make the same choice to kill a baby with a pregnancy abortion. This takes place by not becoming pregnant and stopping the ovulation process.

    When woman ask to have a medical procedure performed a Doctor cannot ask, perform, or bill a woman for pregnancy abortion without exposure to self-incrimination to themselves and the patient. The basic lie is that a plan of Death is murder and that basic state is shared with all woman by not becoming or maintaining pregnancy.

    A woman can be told what to do with her body just as any male that isn’t the issue at all. The question is a woman is a international border with limited access to who may cross that border to gain entry into a Nation.

    Death of a baby isn’t the United State which all woman is not created equal on, prove one out of all woman who has not knowingly killed a baby by say no to sexual intercourse and the fertilization of a human egg. Can you?  it is the question of immigration of the person who is to enter a country legally through use of the woman at possibly risk to her life as a cost to the entry. A woman is not official killing for there is no independence of life, independence comes over a occurrence of maturity, and the stages of independence matter. As the death is only a constant point made by her choice to end the entry of a immigration at its starts to the United State of the World. All woman equally bear this constitutional union only by the natural ability to become pregnant.

    There is no constitutional representation of woman being made in united state at all in this matter of pregnancy. What is being represented is an accusation made directly against American united State Constitution and this is done with a lie as perjury when place in legislative law.

    Respectively I yield back time.

    대왕광개토
  • @KdCuber ;
    "Rape doesn't justify murder."

    The problem is rape is a form of assault, sexual assault has two principles. Principle one is types of sexual action, some kind of attack is principle two , with the state of force creates the union several forms of evidence can be found. Assault can progress to become a murder over a duration of its investigated life time. In a united state it is trying to justify a termination in basic principle of all woman's abilities to independent immigration into the world as United State. Though a woman may have been rape A.K.A. sexual assaulted it is not necessary to insure woman under United State Constitutional right to official stop immigration into a nation by legal precedent as it constitutional relates to woman by general welfare. 

    A female specific amputation does not effect life by self-incrimination it sets a immigration status to neutral in relationship to human health by the actions a woman may find necessary until reasonable information can be presented in well regulated grievance .

    A Rape is not need to address the female attack orginized on American United State Consitution at the asigned cost palced on woman.



  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    I'll just say that about 70% of the U.S. and Canada disagree with the premise of this debate. Many of that percentage believe in the premise of the Christian God. They also believe in the Constitution as law of the land. They swear on the Bible to uphold that Constitution, they do NOT swear to uphold the Bible. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and the vast majority stand by it. NO MINORITY should change it. Women had few rights in the Bible, they DO have rights in this country, and, as John Adams said: The government of the United States is not, in any sense, based on the Christian religion." (I hope I have that right …. close anyway ;) )  If we live by the Bible we will be no better than the Muslim countries that live by the Koran, and, eventually we will have another religious war with them. We must live by societal laws, not ancient religious laws as many Muslim countries do. It's unhealthy ………… and, a bit wacky. :smirk:
    대왕광개토PlaffelvohfenScienceRulesOakTownAOpenminded
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @jesusisGod777

    Are you saying, no abortion even if the life of the mother is at risk?  That is dumb.  You can't argue based on religion, that is a fallacy.
    Openminded
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    If people actually want to argue the point on abortion, they need to ask:  Is the fetus a human life, and is it's life more valuable than the convenience of the mother.  All other points are mute.

    To me, biology shows that the fetus is a human life, and personally I believe the essence of a human life is more valuable than that convenience.  Especially considering it is the woman who made the decision to allow a fetus grow inside her, not the fetus.  

    The most horrific moments in human history have come from us devaluing the life of humanity.  Are we currently making the same mistake?
    PlaffelvohfencalebsicaScienceRulesDebater123OakTownAFoxlady76GiantMan
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    More than 20 percent of patients who sought a second opinion at one of the nation’s premier medical institutions had been misdiagnosed by their primary care providers, according to new research published Tuesday.

    Second why do you KIDs keep on challenging reality.

    When two lived are wished which is more important 

    A child's life

    Or an adults life

    Stop directing comments at me.

    Jesus I'd Lord.
    Blastcatdallased25
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @jesusisGod777 ; You posted on a debate website, and you don't expect replies?

    While I agree with you that abortion is wrong a child and fetus are different.

    Also, while both are valuable, I would make the case that the adult who has currently made family, friendships, and additional relationships loss would cause more hardship than the death of a fetus.  Also I don't feel it is right to tell someone that they have to die for their baby.  This most definitely would cause a shortage in the people willing to become mothers, and it is just wrong to force someone to die for someone else. 

     Yes there are misdiagnosis, but we still have use the opinions of medical professionals regarding the life of the mother because they have the most valuable insight.


  • OpenmindedOpenminded 196 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Abortion isn't okay no matter what

    @seriously10 ;
    Your debate statement states abortion is murder no matter what. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Herein lies the question. At what point is an embryo, or fetus a human being? Some say it is a human being at conception. Some in the medical community believe a fetus is a developing baby in the womb and is unable to feel pain until the 24th week. Other scientists believe it´s possible for a fetus to feel pain as early as 12 weeks. And still some think the brain and nervous system along with a consciousness or awareness must be fully developed before a fetus is a human being. I do not believe abortion is murder under all circumstances. Being a woman, this is a very personal issue to me. I remain level headed, and put emotion aside. Scientific evidence based on fact, is the only argument that has credence. 
  • OpenmindedOpenminded 196 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Abortion isn't okay no matter what

    @jesusisGod777

    You believe Jesus is Lord. Then you likely are one to believe that a fetus is a human being at conception. Then you likely believe in the immaculate conception? This is religious dogma at its best and should not be used as a yard stick to measure oneś morality.
  • Foxlady76Foxlady76 20 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Abortion Is Okay

    Abortion is okay. If you get raped and you have your child, you have a reminder everyday about what happened. Not only that but having a kid changes your life. You can't go to college (at least it would be hard to) and having a job is really hard with a newborn child and no spouse. And if you need to get a job because you are just out of college, here comes a baby! You can't take care of the baby and you're broke.
    Another thing is what if the mother dies? Are you willing to let an innocent woman die because of a fetus? Or what if the baby is going to die right after birth? The mother would feel even more heartbroken. She just went through labor, that is so much pain, to watch her baby die. I know abortion is okay.
  • Foxlady76Foxlady76 20 Pts   -  
      
  • Foxlady76Foxlady76 20 Pts   -  
       
  • @Foxlady76
    Abortion is okay. If you get raped./

    Abortion, or more clearly said pregnancy abortion being okay is not the American grievance abortion is not a United State Constitutional Right and cannot be written as one it has been written as a criminal law first. This might be the best way to put it. Once a criminal law of a State set it as a crime it cannot be easily a word which then can be said is only right and not a crime. It has been written as a crime already the milk is spilled so to say. We can replace the word rape with Female-specific amputation that is not a word used in the writing of criminal law. For rape, sexual assault also is a crime under criminal law it is no longer a word to describe a right it states a wrong. The word rape can be replaced with immigration because it is not the action of sexual assault which is to be made a constitutional right it is the termination of a birth as entry into a nation as a united state with all women, past, present, and future.

    Fighting crime and criminal law enforcement do not have anything to do with United States Constitutional Right until a Constitutional Right has been written and sent before congress. It is this process which completes the United States Constitutional right and sends it before the States, so it is ratified into American Constitution. The point that makes this a complex expansion of American Constitutional Right is that we are going into Articles, Sections, and Amendments and addressing multiple changes. All change however are United State also related to setting all women as created equal by their creator entering females as fact women critically right into the American United States Constitution. There is no crime used as alibi a women has a standard of verbal and written equal in right to men, that she is to hold herself equal before Constitutional law at all times with all other women.

    This process is not like a same Gender Civil Union to equal marriage. A public state of the union as a single united state between only two women. It is a multiple state of the union made between all woman at one time as a filed verbal written right, Presadera.


  • just_sayinjust_sayin 1281 Pts   -   edited November 2023
    @jesusisGod777

    You believe Jesus is Lord. Then you likely are one to believe that a fetus is a human being at conception. Then you likely believe in the immaculate conception? This is religious dogma at its best and should not be used as a yard stick to measure oneś morality.
    A fetus is a human stage of growth, and therefore a fetus is a human.  In  The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins 

    Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. 
    Biology text books also agree:

    "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
    From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55:
    1. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo.."
    Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17:
    "In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
    Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43:
    1. "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2:
    (updated, still the same)
    "Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."

    T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11:
    "Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2:
    "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

    J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17:
    "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

    Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8:
    "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

    William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14:
    "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3:
    "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

    E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii:
    "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

    Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974:
    "In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."

    Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986:
    "...but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before - at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by..."

    Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943:
    "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

    Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3:
    "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

    Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53:
    "A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life."

    Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99:
    "Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex ...structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection."

    Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86:
    "The development of a new human being begins when a male's sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female's ovum, or egg....The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months."

    Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419:
    "The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual."

    DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584:
    "The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world."

    In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video):
    "The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."

    The Biology of Prenatal Development, National Geographic, 2006. (Video):
    "Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."

    Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition. Chicago 1974:
    "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg."

    Leslie Brainerd Arey, "Developmental Anatomy" seventh edition (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55:
    "The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization."
    So the consensus of biologists is that human life begins at fertilization.  Your view is an anti-science one based on your political views.  

    GiantMan
  • DeeDee 5401 Pts   -  
    @Foxlady76

    Abortion is choice women make and is perfectly fine as a fetus is there by a woman's permission which may be withdrawn.

    Her body her choice.
    Foxlady76
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 1281 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Foxlady76

    Abortion is choice women make and is perfectly fine as a fetus is there by a woman's permission which may be withdrawn.

    Her body her choice.
    The unborn child does not share the same DNA as the progenitor.  If it was truly her body we were discussing, then she would be the one dead after an abortion.  Instead, abortion kills an innocent human life who is not the progenitor.  The unborn child did not give the progenitor permission to kill her, however in most instances, excluding rape or incest, the woman engaged in activity that she knowingly knew could result in a human life being inside of her.  It would therefore be wrong to think of the unborn  child as an invader.
    GiantMan
  • @Dee

    Abortion is choice women make and is perfectly fine as a fetus is there by a woman's permission which may be withdrawn. 
    This argument is only relivant as long as all women are  not created equal by their creator.

    In the options a women or man can choose while preserving United States Constitutional Right from Articles, Sections, and Amendments written in the United States Constitution we have posterity, there is a choice of citizenship, immigration, and ambassadors, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment and a few other amendments to choose from. Why are you insisting women go backward to practicing criminal law without a license by their United State Constitutional Right to represent themselves in a criminal court of law.   

    I'm sorry her body does not turn up....
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @Openminded

    A zygote is the beginning of human development and therefore a human being by definition. You may disagree from a moral perspective what makes a human being valuable under the law (person) but there is scientific consensus here. 
    GiantMan
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 870 Pts   -   edited November 2023
    @MichaelElpers
    A zygote is the beginning of human development and therefore a human being by definition. You may disagree from a moral perspective what makes a human being valuable under the law (person) but there is scientific consensus here. 

      I do not disagree on what makes a human being developed. i do argue the idea of a scientific consensus on the topic though I have not heard one scientist describe how abortion or pregnancy abortion is not already a criminal law, or how science can hold the word abortion with all women as a  United States Constitutional Right. That is a perfect right without any crime limiting the overall state set in whole truth with established justice. It is like the scientist community refuse to answer the question at all.

    It sounds like science what to practice medicine without a license, not law without a license, and have nothing to do with writing a United States Constitutional Right. Last I heard doctors and lawyers are both people also in America.

  • @just_sayin

    Why are you guy's insisting we having a public trial and not debate the United States Constitutional Right that is missing? We know abortion is a crime. The Texas law which started Roe vs Wade describes abortion as a crime. Sending it down to the local legal states of law doesn't change that identification made by the courts. It is a crime, and it is not a United States Constitutional Right. Describing it as a United States Constitutional right means we simply describe it as a right and not a criminal act, then ratify the American constitutional right.

    People will do anything for donations to keep pointless legal arguments going, won’t they. We should probably pass a new building code all court rooms need to have stall warnings alarm installed on the judge’s bench. I would have said new rule but building codes can be enforced by criminal law.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6580 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    If the point at which a clump of cells gain rights is the point at which it acquires a unique DNA structure, then would it not mean that a local genetic damage to my arm would make my arm into a human being having its own rights? Pretty strange, to determine whether a being has rights or not based on the arrangement of amino acids in its body, or am I missing something? What about rights of human-like synthetic beings with no DNA whatsoever? What about animals who have DNA distinct from humans? What about a modified DNA sample in a petri dish?

    Should a scientist ask for permission of the human DNA sample to do some tests on it?
  • DeeDee 5401 Pts   -   edited December 2023
    @just_sayin

    ***The unborn child does not share the same DNA as the progenitor. 
    If it was truly her body we were discussing, then she would be the one dead after an abortion***

    But it's her body I'm.talking about and her rights regarding such, also bringing a fetus to term could indeed kill her.

    ***Instead, abortion kills an innocent human life who is not the progenitor.***

    No one should have the right to force a woman against her will to give birth.


     ***The unborn child did not give the progenitor permission to kill her, however in most instances, excluding rape or incest***

    I'm curious  how could you know what  permissions an unborn would want?

    What you're basically saying is that women should be forced into giving birth against their will right?


    *** the woman engaged in activity that she knowingly knew could result in a human life being inside of her***

    Yes she knowingly knew so what?

    .  ***It would therefore be wrong to think of the unborn  child as an invader***

    I'm sorry but you don't get to define right and wrong for other people

    If permission to remain there is withdrawn the fetus is indeed an intruder to say the least.




    1;A woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body

    2: The foetus exists inside a woman's body

    3: :A.woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body

    4: Therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus

    @just_sayin
    GiantManOpenminded
  • BarnardotBarnardot 691 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin ;Instead, abortion kills an innocent human life

    There you go again coming out with extream trash that you choose to read from exstream sauces which is just a load of fabricated lies. Abortion does not kill an innocent life and by you pushing those bull crap lies and total mis information is a total insult to the rights and dignity of descent people. 

    When are you going to stop pushing all that exstream lieing non sense.

    GiantMan
  • BarnardotBarnardot 691 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ;A zygote is the beginning of human development and therefore a human being by definition.

    It makes no sents to jump from beginning of human development to being a human being and then say by definition. A human being has been defined by law and if you dont like it then tough. But trying to mutate different phrases to fit what you think does not a human being make. 

    GiantMan
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 1281 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @just_sayin

    If the point at which a clump of cells gain rights is the point at which it acquires a unique DNA structure, then would it not mean that a local genetic damage to my arm would make my arm into a human being having its own rights? Pretty strange, to determine whether a being has rights or not based on the arrangement of amino acids in its body, or am I missing something? What about rights of human-like synthetic beings with no DNA whatsoever? What about animals who have DNA distinct from humans? What about a modified DNA sample in a petri dish?

    Should a scientist ask for permission of the human DNA sample to do some tests on it?
    A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or ovum are only parts of a human being. If cells are removed from the human being; they would simply disintegrate.  The unborn child is not just cells from the woman.  She has her own unique DNA.  She has her own heartbeat, she is developing/has her own arms, legs, organs.  She is a distinct being from the mother.  She has the potential to live apart from the woman at fairly determinable time frame - cells do not.  

    I thought you had a philosophy background?  Ontology is the study of 'being', you might find some good sources to clarify the issue there.  
  • So, to simplify the abortion grievance what you are both saying is there should not be an criminal abortion law because science cannot agree on when life begins. Yet there is a criminal law describing it as a crime and still science has an excuse to get paid for not holding consensus on how to say a medical procedure Constitutionally for all women as a United State that doesn't involve an officially documented crime. The best we have are lawyers who are licenced doctors who can practive two things on the public anyway?

    A women isn't deciding if a fetus is to stay in her body she is deciding if she is going to die to contribute to posterity of a nation or a man as United State. Even if the women are lesbian she will still if to bear child a 2nd Amendment right must make that choice. It is that line which is the sand that the line of Constitutional Right rests on. You guys are the distraction of criminal law and science must establish on their own it doesn’t understand the facts.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    The law would be scientifically wrong.

    Lets go back to when blacks werent viewed as people.  Would youre response be the same: " A human being has been defined by law and if you dont like it then tough."

    We change laws based around new information. We know for a fact a zygote is the beginning of human development.
    GiantMan
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "I'm sorry but you don't get to define right and wrong for other people"

    Umm, what are laws against murder, stealing, ect.

    Are you not also in favor of hate speech laws?  Are you not deciding what is right and wrong?
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 1281 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    So, to simplify the abortion grievance what you are both saying is there should not be an criminal abortion law because science cannot agree on when life begins. Yet there is a criminal law describing it as a crime and still science has an excuse to get paid for not holding consensus on how to say a medical procedure Constitutionally for all women as a United State that doesn't involve an officially documented crime. The best we have are lawyers who are licenced doctors who can practive two things on the public anyway?

    A women isn't deciding if a fetus is to stay in her body she is deciding if she is going to die to contribute to posterity of a nation or a man as United State. Even if the women are lesbian she will still if to bear child a 2nd Amendment right must make that choice. It is that line which is the sand that the line of Constitutional Right rests on. You guys are the distraction of criminal law and science must establish on their own it doesn’t understand the facts.


    So, to simplify the abortion grievance what you are both saying is there should not be an criminal abortion law because science cannot agree on when life begins.
    No John, science has a consensus on when life begins.  The issue is not a biological one as some have wrongly argued.  The issue is a philosophical one.  The key question is not when does a human life begins - science has answered this question, but when does human life have value.  That's a philosophical question and different than the biological one.
    GiantMan
  • DeeDee 5401 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers


    Umm, what are laws against murder, stealing, ect.


    Ummm ........I  clearly stated ........

    "I'm sorry but YOU don't get to define right and wrong for other people"


    Your strawman fails 



  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Well of course I am not a dictator of a country so I personally dont.

    In a republic, we as a society through legislation passed by government representatives fo this all the time.

    We absolutely determine what is right or wrong all time, and the point of the debate is to determine whether abortion should be acceptable under law.  Part of that is a moral determination.

    Im not sure who in the debate thread thinks they personally get to change the law, so it indeed is YOU who is using a strawman.
    I didnt take the YOU literally as a single specific person because our laws are not created that way.

    GiantMan
  • DeeDee 5401 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Im not sure who in the debate thread thinks they personally get to change the law, so it indeed is YOU who is using a strawman.
    I didnt take the YOU literally as a single specific person because our laws are not created that way.


    You're either acting the id-ot or clown my remark was in reply to the following.......your strawman fails yet again 


    It would therefore be wrong to think of the unborn  child as an invader

    I'm sorry but you don't get to define right and wrong for other people



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6580 Pts   -  
    just_sayin said:

    A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or ovum are only parts of a human being. If cells are removed from the human being; they would simply disintegrate.  The unborn child is not just cells from the woman.  She has her own unique DNA.  She has her own heartbeat, she is developing/has her own arms, legs, organs.  She is a distinct being from the mother.  She has the potential to live apart from the woman at fairly determinable time frame - cells do not.  

    I thought you had a philosophy background?  Ontology is the study of 'being', you might find some good sources to clarify the issue there.  
    Cells can very well be kept alive for extended period of life in a lab; if they are not put in proper conditions, they, indeed, will disintegrate. Similarly, an undeveloped human being, when extracted from the woman's body and not put into proper conditions, will also disintegrate. Both cells and removed fetuses require intentional maintenance to survive, and both can have either different or the same DNA from the host for various reasons. What is the essential difference here?

    And what about clones that have the same DNA as the original creature? Would you argue that a human being that was born as a result of cloning does not have the same rights as one that was not?

    To your last question, I have not studied philosophy professionally. To me though this is not a question of philosophy, but physics and logic. Your argument appears to me to be applied inconsistently. I am fine with an argument applied consistently, even if its conclusion is not the same as the one I arrive to through my own reasoning.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    "Similarly, an undeveloped human being, when extracted from the woman's body and not put into proper conditions, will also disintegrate. Both cells and removed fetuses require intentional maintenance to survive, "

    Even adults require the proper environment.  Developing organisms and developed organisms are adapted to survive the environment they naturally expected to be in. A developing human organism is expectectd to be in a mothers womb and therefore builds the conditions to survive.  If fetus for example breathed like adults they would drown.

    This would seem similar to me to sucking oxygen out of a room or expecting developed humans to live on mars.  Of course they cant.
    GiantManJohn_C_87
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 1281 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    just_sayin said:

    A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or ovum are only parts of a human being. If cells are removed from the human being; they would simply disintegrate.  The unborn child is not just cells from the woman.  She has her own unique DNA.  She has her own heartbeat, she is developing/has her own arms, legs, organs.  She is a distinct being from the mother.  She has the potential to live apart from the woman at fairly determinable time frame - cells do not.  

    I thought you had a philosophy background?  Ontology is the study of 'being', you might find some good sources to clarify the issue there.  
    Cells can very well be kept alive for extended period of life in a lab; if they are not put in proper conditions, they, indeed, will disintegrate. Similarly, an undeveloped human being, when extracted from the woman's body and not put into proper conditions, will also disintegrate. Both cells and removed fetuses require intentional maintenance to survive, and both can have either different or the same DNA from the host for various reasons. What is the essential difference here?

    And what about clones that have the same DNA as the original creature? Would you argue that a human being that was born as a result of cloning does not have the same rights as one that was not?

    To your last question, I have not studied philosophy professionally. To me though this is not a question of philosophy, but physics and logic. Your argument appears to me to be applied inconsistently. I am fine with an argument applied consistently, even if its conclusion is not the same as the one I arrive to through my own reasoning.
    May, I'm not buying that you are as dumb as that read.  Quick question to show you don't even believe the male-cow-waste you are flinging. How many human beings are currently living in the world?  You can give me an estimate.  I'll accept any answer within a range of 20 billion or so.  What was your guess?  In 2021 there were 7.888 billion people in the world.  If you answered anything less than 30 billion consider it close enough.  If cells are human beings, why wasn't your answer about 2.3664e+23 (there are an estimated 30 trillion cells in each human body)?  Know why?  Cause you don't believe that a human cell is a human being.  You know it is a subpart of one.  

    If I go to a car dealer and purchase a car and all I get is a tire, will I be happy?  Nope.  While a tire is a part of a car, it does not represent the entity of a car.  An entity can have many subparts or attributes, but the subparts are not classified as the entity alone.  The unborn child may be gestating within the progenitor, but she is a separate entity - ie being.  Can a human have 2 different blood types at the same time?  Nope.  But a progenitor and child can.  Is it possible for the mother to die, and the child to be born alive?  Yep.  Then if both were the same being, that can't happen.  What happens to the primary entity impacts the subparts when speaking of biological beings.  

    When one fertilized egg  splits and develops into two babies with exactly the same genetic information is this one being or 2?  Is the mom having 0,1, or 2 babies? There are 2 babies in the mother's womb.  Even though they share the same genetic makeup, there are 2 entities separate and distinct from one another.  If one dies, the other may live.  They can have different experiences.  What happens to one of the twins does not necessarily impact the other - that's because even though they share the same location, and have the same genetic makeup, they are 2 different beings.  (I'm answering your question about cloning here).   
    John_C_87
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6580 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    "Similarly, an undeveloped human being, when extracted from the woman's body and not put into proper conditions, will also disintegrate. Both cells and removed fetuses require intentional maintenance to survive, "

    Even adults require the proper environment.  Developing organisms and developed organisms are adapted to survive the environment they naturally expected to be in. A developing human organism is expectectd to be in a mothers womb and therefore builds the conditions to survive.  If fetus for example breathed like adults they would drown.

    This would seem similar to me to sucking oxygen out of a room or expecting developed humans to live on mars.  Of course they cant.
    Yes, everyone requires proper environment. That is why the argument about "potential" makes little sense to me. Everything has a potential to live under certain circumstances, and die under different circumstances.

    Where English Common Law historically has drawn the line is when someone goes out of their way to make another human's survival impossible. If you have built your own dome on Mars and I intruded on your property and disrupted the oxygen control system, then I have committed a transgression against you. But if you broke into my dome, I demanded that you leave my property and you did not, then it is fair game for me to tinker with the oxygen supply to force you to leave or perish. Potential of you to live happily in my dome does not enter the equation any more than potential of a woman's rapist to have happy sex with her every evening does when determining whether arresting him is a violation of his rights or not.




    just_sayin said:

    May, I'm not buying that you are as dumb as that read.  Quick question to show you don't even believe the male-cow-waste you are flinging. How many human beings are currently living in the world?  You can give me an estimate.  I'll accept any answer within a range of 20 billion or so.  What was your guess?  In 2021 there were 7.888 billion people in the world.  If you answered anything less than 30 billion consider it close enough.  If cells are human beings, why wasn't your answer about 2.3664e+23 (there are an estimated 30 trillion cells in each human body)?  Know why?  Cause you don't believe that a human cell is a human being.  You know it is a subpart of one.  

    If I go to a car dealer and purchase a car and all I get is a tire, will I be happy?  Nope.  While a tire is a part of a car, it does not represent the entity of a car.  An entity can have many subparts or attributes, but the subparts are not classified as the entity alone.  The unborn child may be gestating within the progenitor, but she is a separate entity - ie being.  Can a human have 2 different blood types at the same time?  Nope.  But a progenitor and child can.  Is it possible for the mother to die, and the child to be born alive?  Yep.  Then if both were the same being, that can't happen.  What happens to the primary entity impacts the subparts when speaking of biological beings.  

    When one fertilized egg  splits and develops into two babies with exactly the same genetic information is this one being or 2?  Is the mom having 0,1, or 2 babies? There are 2 babies in the mother's womb.  Even though they share the same genetic makeup, there are 2 entities separate and distinct from one another.  If one dies, the other may live.  They can have different experiences.  What happens to one of the twins does not necessarily impact the other - that's because even though they share the same location, and have the same genetic makeup, they are 2 different beings.  (I'm answering your question about cloning here).   
    I think that when you start a comment with "I'm not buying that you are as dumb as that read", then you are not particularly interested in a productive discussion.

    I certainly do not think that human cell is a human being. That is something that one accepting your premises (as I read them) would believe, but not me. I do not accept the premise that difference in the DNA is what makes something a separate being having rights, but if I were to accept it, this conclusion would be inevitable.
    I do not think it "dumb" to follow someone's argument to its logical conclusion. You see this conclusion as absurd - but it follows from your argument. If your argument leads to an absurd conclusion, then you would do well to rethink the argument.

    What is primary and what is not seems a matter of perspective. I can take a perspective to say that the Universe is the primary and everything else is tertiary, therefore no one has any rights and only the laws of the Universe decide who can do what. The implication would be that no legal or moral system has any effect, only laws of mother nature in their raw form apply.
    In the context of society I think it reasonable to see the primary unit as an autonomous sapient being who can make conscious decisions, because it is the interaction between these humans from which the concept of "rights" arises. I do not see how this concept can be extended to non-sapient beings, or to to-become-sapient beings, or to dead formerly-sapient beings... We are living now, we cannot talk about the rights of someone who will live later or lived in the past. Mother Teresa has no rights, she is a corpse. My son has no rights, he is yet to be born. I have rights, I am right here, thinking and speaking.
    I am open to other interpretations of this, but I have not seen an interpretation yet that would magically add a fetus to it that would also not add a bunch of other things that those who see abortion as an act of murder do not extend their reasoning to.

    I agree with your answer regarding cloning, but here you are making no reference whatsoever to the similarity of the DNA - yet you did before. So is the similarity of the DNA determinant of whether the being is the same, or not? You cannot have it both ways and pick the one that is most convenient to mention at the moment.
    John_C_87
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1152 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    It seems abortion would be a tinkering of the control system as that would outside of the natural state.
  • The grievance argued in debate is abortion is not okay no matter what. Saying it is okay because there is a chance a women can be found innocent of the criminal charge or not prosecuted by the law does not make the unacceptable part of the grievance of abortion ever 

    Posterity is described as part of an introduction of facts set in writing as a United States Constitutional Right. A male, man, " He " as person preserving, protecting, and defending united states constitution a child has a potential to be citizen. At the moment a women is at a serious disadvantage to her counter social partner all males for she has been legally advised in a practice of “ criminal “ law they, she need not be connected to, or preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution Right. There is a way around it as long as women are willing to pay. By pay it is not just with money it is with their own liberty otherwise granted to them for preserving, protecting and defending American United States Constitution.

    All this argument though costly, extravagant, and well-meant means little or nothing to the argument of Constitutional Right as law. This discussion is quite literally obstructing justice. The surprise is that women can be created as all equal and addressed as witness before American United States Constitutional Right before the people. The argument can the carry as far as to the court’s of criminal justice. Refusing to work, refusing to fulfill a job requirement, or even jsut a verbal oath does not mean it cannot be done. A United States Constitutional Right does not need to be ratified to be created. The power of voting has a limit only meaning by 1st Amendment it is not written in the United States Constitution itself. 

    The use of silence and lack of understanding given by the 1st amendment comes at a cost. The presumption of innocence is not gained or lost by proving a wrong against a United State of American Constitution. The sword a higher education can give to its hold a double-edged arm to bear. The longer some grievance are bearded, humanly held, they become heavier by law of nature, until the point at which they become so over bearing they can no longer be held safely by an person or group holding them and they fall.

    Thank you for reading even if you do not know what to say after.........
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch