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.





Would reversing abortion laws bankrupt the U.S.?

13»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    Who, if not the baby, decides if it is ready or not?

    Sure, the mothers body may decide to eject it or not, but it is the baby's own inner spirit of life that decides if it will live or not. No?

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    The baby doesnt decide whens its ready to be born, the mothers body does. 

    The baby tries to stay alive i guess, but im not sure how that has anything to do with it be more or less developed which was the question at hand.

  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    The baby that is born becomes his own person and is guaranteed security of the person by the constitutions of both of our countries while the other is not born and under present laws is not given personhood or protection.

    As to you trying to use the age of the aborted fetus, I think 12 weeks is the cut of time for abortions which is way shorter a time that you used. You are a trickster using an false scenario.

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian The first still didnt answer my question... and why 12 weeks.
  • The baby that is born becomes his own person and is guaranteed security of the person by the constitutions of both of our countries while the other is not born and under present laws is not given personhood or protection.

    As to you trying to use the age of the aborted fetus, I think 12 weeks is the cut of time for abortions which is way shorter a time that you used. You are a trickster using an false scenario.

    Regards
    DL

    GnosticChristian

    A woman is inherent to constitutional right all women are created equal by their creator is a United State Constitutional right set upon women, for a woman. The child no matter the age is a minor and is the father and mother, or just the mother's responsibility.

    The argument in the constitutional right, and mind you, the debate is all about a constitutional right here, as the law is only presented by legal precedent. The child at a stage of development is simply not a citizen in this matter the pre-birth children are all under the age of adult status. The minor in question does not operate inside the mother by diplomatic appointment so immunity granted by the state to which the child was created has no immunity from the law. This includes murder your fear of an improper military tribunal is noted by the concern is not a justification of the violation of privacy that takes place.

    Female-specific amputations are not pregnancy abortions. Any and all pregnancy terminations are incidental to the stopping of the citizenship and immigration issue which is life-threatening. Women are in danger when pregnant and the people of the general welfare have no access to information to this regard. Any invasion of privacy does not ensure the general welfare of a common defense to the crime suggested as murder by admission using the word abortion as a term to describe a medical process. It is not just malpractice of medicine it is malpractice of law as well, as am accidental malpractice it must be corrected immediately. Otherwise, the malpractice is seen as not accidental but intentional. Any arguments between people can go on for as long as required it is the attack on United States Consitution which is being corrected for legal American precedent accounts for half of the area which takes damage while under attack.


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    The child no matter the age is a minor and is the father and mother, or just the mother's responsibility.

    The child at a stage of development is simply not a citizen in this matter the pre-birth children are all under the age of adult status. 

    The minor in question does not operate inside the mother by diplomatic appointment so immunity granted by the state to which the child was created has no immunity from the law. This includes murder your fear of an improper military tribunal is noted by the concern is not a justification of the violation of privacy that takes place.

    Female-specific amputations are not pregnancy abortions. Any and all pregnancy terminations are incidental to the stopping of the citizenship and immigration issue which is life-threatening. Women are in danger when pregnant and the people of the general welfare have no access to information to this regard. Any invasion of privacy does not ensure the general welfare of a common defense to the crime suggested as murder by admission using the word abortion as a term to describe a medical process. It is not just malpractice of medicine it is malpractice of law as well, as am accidental malpractice it must be corrected immediately. Otherwise, the malpractice is seen as not accidental but intentional. Any arguments between people can go on for as long as required it is the attack on United States Consitution which is being corrected for legal American precedent accounts for half of the area which takes damage while under attack.


    I was going to start a reply but your miss-use of terms like child for an unborn fetus and amputations are confusing the issue too much.

    Get into my more proper terms or do not bother me.

    Regards
    DL


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    GnosticChristian said:

    I am not surprised that you do not like my source of statistics.
    If you have some other stats to offer, given that you affirm that the rich pay more as a % of income, do so.
    Unless you just pulled that out of the air.
    It is just that your source of statistics does not support your point. It only lists local and state tax, which have very small contributions to the total amount of taxes a person pays. There is federal income tax; there is sales tax; there are tariffs; there are corporate taxes (which you do pay, trust me); there is property tax; there are excise taxes...

    Someone at Independent Institute once calculated that if we account for all existing taxes and other ways the government takes money away from people, we arrive at the average tax rate of 70-80% in the country. Looks quite plausible to me.
    GnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    Your terms break the law. Your terms violate a united state in constitution. This is merely a Presidential state of the Union. Made from a President who does not hold the powers of the executive office, yet as men, we are all created equal by our creator the word President of a single United States set before all America and the independent states of law for which they stand in unison.

    The issue is of any expense as cost or charge depends on how the action of reversal is to take place, what describes a change to the process of aborting a pregnancy, aborting a birth, and now aborting immigration. A nation unfit to receive immigration by Pregnancy, birth, and a new arrival into both airspace and soil, and lethal force has a united state which can be easily identified by the public. Military.

    The fetus is the child. The child is nothing more than a legal minor. The fetus is nothing more than a younger child and still a legal minor. The problem is the legal precedent set by the unconstitutional interpretation for the argument was and still is malpractice of law. This due to the supreme court ruling in 1973 marking the loss of privacy created by written law in Texas a criminal undertaking. An undertaking then pursued by others in a legal sense.

    So, the question that was asked by the Court's finding was to identify what created the crime generating any loss of privacy in the law written in Texas? My answer to that question is and will be still the word abortion. My common defense to the general welfare of women to ensure an attempt made at their privacy is female-specific amputation. I'm on the table. This is not a negotiation it is an answer to the grievance. The grievance was political inappropriate legislation of law found to be unconstitutional. 

     

    Alison Moyet, Invisible (1995) Written by Lamont Dozier of the songwriting team of Holland-Dozier-Holland.


    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:



    Someone at Independent Institute once calculated that if we account for all existing taxes and other ways the government takes money away from people, we arrive at the average tax rate of 70-80% in the country. Looks quite plausible to me.
    This link includes all taxes.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/

    Regards
    DL
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    The fetus is the child. 


    You break the rule of the excludded middle.

    Amputate your misuse of English and we can talk.

    Regards
    DL

  • John_C_87 said:

    The fetus is the child. 


    You break the rule of the excludded middle.

    Amputate your misuse of English and we can talk.

    Regards
    DL

    A fetus is simply a child that has not undergone immigration. 
    Both fetus and child are minors and there is no middle in being underage. They are or they are not underage.

    I am giving a Constitutional First Amendment right as a grievance, and explaining the course of separation of me, form you, and those like you. With the use of female-specific amputation, as any economical events as consequence would take place due to the direction already underway, not any change of that direction. It would have nothing to do with creating all women as equal by their creator.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    im·mi·gra·tion
    /ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
    noun
    noun: immigration
    1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.


      fe·tus
      /ˈfēdəs/
      noun
      noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses
      1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.


      child
      /CHīld/
      noun
      noun: child; plural noun: children
      1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

      Regards
      DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    So according to definition fetuses are babies.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    So according to definition fetuses are babies.
    The definition is time sensitive and more accurate than what you posit.

    "in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

    I prefer my definition that any fertilized egg is a potential human, which is all inclusive till birth.

    My arguments for legal abortion is not based on the various names or timing of the pregnancy. It is based on my granting the woman a right to do as she will, within the limits set by present laws, that insure all of us our constitutional security of the person. I also feel that if we are to force children to be born in poverty, we should be obliged to re-write out tax laws that now impose poverty on our weakest and most vulnerable.

    We condemn those children, if we force their birth, to the worst end instead of paying for their best end.

    Do you value your limited freedoms?

    Anti-abortionists want their cake and to eat it too.

    Regards
    DL
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @GnosticChristian

    I prefer actual reasons why your definition makes sense.  Which you have never provided.

    Because something is current law doesnt make it correct...slave owners had a right to own slaves under law. 

    anyone can do as they will until they start harming someone else.

    So forcing people to be born into poverty, which we are not doing, is somehow worse than out right killing them.  I guess everyone born in developing or third world countries should be aborted so they arent forced into poverty then...right?  

    Killing them is the worst end.

    I value freedoms certaintly, i disagree that killing your fetus/baby falls under the umbrella of freedom.


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    I gave the logic for my definition. What more can I say.

    It eliminates the argument on the definition of terms and cuts to the moral issues immediately as it posits a growing potential human, which should suit you better than any other term until it pops out as a baby.

    is hard to understand about that and I would think you would be all in, even if you are biligerent and obtuse on other points.

    Regards
    DL

  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited March 2020

    Killing them is the worst end.

    I value freedoms certaintly, i disagree that killing your fetus/baby falls under the umbrella of freedom.


    Decisions are based on what we know and have learned.

    Have you ever watched the movie, They Kill Horses Don't They?

    If so, do you see a murder or a mercy killing?

    Do you believe in merci killing or right to die for sane adults?

    Regards
    DL 

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Do you believe in mercy killings...not for someone whose flaw is that they are poor.  Especially in America.
    You are still advocating anyone born into poverty should be aborted, say goodbye to most people in poor countries.

    I dont personally agree with someone killing themselves but they should be allowed to.  In sight of that, why arent poor people just killing themselves, if that is the merciful or better outcome.

    You state you view the fetus as a potential human to fit your argument but you didnt give reasons on why it is a potential person and not just an outright person.
    For example i believe this is what defines a person because all others normally delete people who are already born:
    What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.
    And 
    It is because an entity has an essence and falls within a natural kind that it can possess a unity of dispositions, capacities, parts and properties at a given time and can maintain identity through change
  • @GnosticChristian ;

    im·mi·gra·tion
    /ˌiməˈɡrāSH(ə)n/
    noun
    noun: immigration
    1. the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

    due date

    noun [ C ]

    us

    /ˈduː ˌdeɪt/ uk

    /ˈdʒuː ˌdeɪt/

    the date on which a woman's baby is expected to be born:

     birth

    : a state resulting from being born especially at a particular time or place. 


    The fetus is not a citizen. The baby crosses a border when in transit of birth. Once born, the baby becomes a citizen of a Country. The baby comes to live in that country from somewhere else. The baby and fetus are minors as they are not over the age of 18 and in some states 21, not adults. A baby cannot be charged with murder they are not adults. A baby can kill, Ironic. Religious fanatics can be charged with legal malpractice of law as the law regarding abortion was found to be illegal in 1973.


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