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.





If Americans can't count on the right to abortion, why do they think gun ownership is safe?

Debate Information

Hello:

Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.  It's the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.   However, THIS Supreme Court, reversed course for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of the court has changed.

 It’s one thing to overturn a long-standing opinion that is antediluvian and hugely unpopular with a large majority of the people. It’s quite another to overturn a constitutional right conferred decades before that is only opposed by a fanatical minority. And, I think it'll cost 'em in the mid-terms. 

I'm just saying, that if Roe could be decided based on politics, gun ownership could too..  I dunno WHY gun owners would take such a risk.  I guess they HATE abortion more than they LOVE their guns.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

excon







Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • OakTownAOakTownA 366 Pts   -  
    You forget that the current Supreme Court has a majority of conservative judges. Conservatives love their guns, so I don't see the USC doing anything to restrict gun rights. In fact, they have ruled in favor of guns. "U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday (June 2022) threw out several lower court rulings that had upheld gun restrictions including bans on assault-style rifles in Maryland and large-capacity ammunition magazines in New Jersey and California."


    jack
  • jackjack 45 Pts   -   edited September 15
    OakTownA said:
    You forget that the current Supreme Court has a majority of conservative judges. Conservatives love their guns, so I don't see the USC doing anything to restrict gun rights.


    Hello again, O:

    Oh, I agree - as they're presently configured..  But, the anger they stirred up, just might be enough to support a re-arrangement of the court, wherein the right wingers are put outta business..

    They STOLE two seats anyway..  They deserve NOTHING..

    excon
    OakTownA
  • @jack
    Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.  

    It is the explanation the council in court uses to describe the constitutional state of the Union made on the more perfect connection to established justice in the Preamble of American Constitution. The two topics of Fire-arm ownership and Pregnancy abortion by the Freedom of Speech can be alienated or connected in a state of the union of self-evident truths. This does not mean that those connection either in self-event truth or assume are the best connection to Constitutional right there is.

    Is the Supreme Court Honoring Justice ?

    Is the Supreme Court Honoring Justice Harry Blackmun identified and brought as grievance to the American people? Constitutional arguments described as violation of privacy have been answered? Due to complexities of the multiple arguments made on the single topic of Female-Specific amputation, which is the current more accurate United State constitutional description of witness accounts saying is otherwise called abortion by claiming there should be not cost passed on to the public.

    Gun ownership is to be more of a political bargaining chip in the breaking of United States of law held by constitutional right. In that due to a female inability to make a connection directly to self-evident truth of being held as Presadera not President, constitutional right, and general common state of the union of law are abandoned, a judicial threat to fire-arm constitutional ownership was to be available to use voting to establish what is to be described as a real tyranny to democratic governing.

    To be specific American's have not established a United States Constitutional Right to abortion it violates legal privacy in multiple levels, Multiple ways. Female-Specific Amputation is better constitutional union than describing an accusation/admission otherwise said to be abortion. FSA being a description of medical treatment preventing and limiting a risk to all women, only women, by what is a more perfect union with established justice made on lethal force in agedneral state of consumer affares, created by one form of immigration possessing over all others forms of immigration, as it is a threat to the life of only the female human species.


  • anarchist100anarchist100 680 Pts   -  
    jack said:

    Hello:

    Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.  It's the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.   However, THIS Supreme Court, reversed course for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of the court has changed.

     It’s one thing to overturn a long-standing opinion that is antediluvian and hugely unpopular with a large majority of the people. It’s quite another to overturn a constitutional right conferred decades before that is only opposed by a fanatical minority. And, I think it'll cost 'em in the mid-terms. 

    I'm just saying, that if Roe could be decided based on politics, gun ownership could too..  I dunno WHY gun owners would take such a risk.  I guess they HATE abortion more than they LOVE their guns.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

    excon




    Well, I imagine that if the people who say this is the first step towards theocracy are right, then the next step will probably be a gun ban, considering that the vast majority of Americans don't want theocracy and will fight against it.
  • The understanding or misunderstanding of United states constitutional right has nothing to do with conservatism, democratic rule, or the GOP. The idea of stacking a jury pull was legal alternative to forming a more perfect state of the union in legislation of law it requires less work, less fact but a requires large risks and a great amount of time.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Mainly because gun ownership is a right in the second amendment, abortion was never a right in the constitution.  If anything the original decision was political and it was corrected.
    OakTownACYDdhartaJohn_C_87
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    The two are no comparable.  One is an actual right and the other was a "right" that was invented by an activist court.
    John_C_87OakTownA
  • @CYDdharta

    They can be matched in a state of the union made on the principles of both the use of lethal force and debilitating condition set on some forms of combat. Thought the issue right away fails to hold all women or all men as to be created equal by tier creator in what is a less than perfect connection of united state as a connection to established justice., the best goal to apply as a connection to justice is not always crime this means simply writing something as a crime, may, or may not mean justice will be served by the connection.


  • @MichaelElpers

    Abortion is a description used by people to describe something in an unconstitutional way it is held outside constitutional right by its means of creation. Female-specific amputation, miscarriage are constitutional descriptions set on the loss of a person obtaining citizenship.

    abortion was never a right in the constitution.

    Here rests the issue in fact, women failed to make the connection to United States Constitution. This does not mean they failed alone, and men did not fail as well, or the connection cannot still be perfected. The explanation for the termination of birth as denial of citizenship is a United States Constitutional right as an order issued under Military Order or Martial Law as birth is life threatening to only a woman. Fact, the fertilization creates the risk of loss of life. The order abort does not pertain to pregnancy under these two conditions. However, Female-specific amputation does exist as a United State Constitutional right under Military order or Martial law as it has not been found to violate a level of established legal privacy.

    The religious argument that life starts at fertilization is simply popular but wrong, life is only prolonged past a normal state so an immigration can occur is fact take place. It is the publics involvement by vote which assigns the status of ambassador upon women as a united state of law, under America United States Constitution. And that is the truth, like it or not.


  • The constitutional requirements said grievance for. We the people, the House of Representatives, the Executive office, all Courts both State, and Federal as a state of the union, establish Female-specific amputations or miscarriage are loss of legal privacy, prove loss of medical privacy, or words that male up both admissions and confession to crime are the more perfect connection to established justice.

    "The common defense towards a general welfare."

    You can begin your tests....

  • jackjack 45 Pts   -   edited September 16
    CYDdharta said:
    The two are no comparable.  One is an actual right and the other was a "right" that was invented by an activist court.
    Hello C:

    Nahhh...  Knowing that there'd be people who'd say that, the founders wrote the 9th Amendment..  Particularly, it says:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


    In the English I speak, the Constitution SAYS there ARE other rights..  What are they, you ask??  Well, we can start with ABORTION, followed closely by GAY MARRIAGE. 

    excon

    OakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 986 Pts   -   edited September 16
    @jack

    "In the English I speak, the Constitution SAYS there ARE other rights..  What are they, you ask??  Well, we can start with ABORTION, followed closely by GAY MARRIAGE."

    No the ninth amendment didn't mean that everything not listed is a federally protected right.
    It was put in place to try and limit the power of the federal government.
    I.e. without it could be argued that anything not explicitly stated such as planting flowers is under control of the federal government.

    If that is what the 9th amendment meant then this would have been the main law and the amendments would exclude the rest of one's right rather than granting them.

    In regards to abortion, power was actually taken away from the federal government.
  • @jack

    Not quite Jack abortion is not a self-evident truth holdable in united state of law, nor is gay marriage, these two things are somewhat both very poor attempts at a creation of a state of the union to established justice that had never been created by those who sought after a particular liberty with others responsibly. 

    Marriage, or even civil union had only been the title of a starting truth to be held as fact in all concerns of connection to established justice, not the object to be seized and broken. For lack of any common defense set forth by those who file grievance Binvir and Unosmulier are constitutional rights as like marriage they are an impartial witness account.


  • @MichaelElpers
    "In the English I speak, the Constitution SAYS there ARE other rights..  What are they, you ask??  Well, we can start with ABORTION, followed closely by GAY MARRIAGE."

    We the people are all given the same instruction be it lawyer, farmer, doctor, daddy, mother, and minster this instruction is not a right it is a responsibility that is delegated out by entering the voting process. Something not explained clearly by the legal department of the three branches of government, your education institution, or legal guardians…to you maybe.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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