CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is abortion a Constitutional right?
I have been reading the news reports on the Planned Parenthood case in Texas. They refer to abortion as being a constitutional right. I have read several other articles where it is referred to as a Constitutional right. I am not aware of an amendment making it constitutional. It only takes a simple majority to reverse a law. I think it takes a 3/4 vote to repeal an amendment. Is abortion a Constitutional right?
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Every person, young or old, has the right of life, according to the 14th amendment of the constitution. No woman can kill her pre-born baby, just as no woman can kill her toddler. The age and level of dependency does not alter a person's right of life.
Technically, yes. You can't interpret the constitution however you feel. They can. So, in a sense they are always right even when they make a bad decision.
That's rather faulty logic, is it not? Although the Judicial system is meant to be "right" they have been known to err, given the fact that they are human, with all of the biases and opinions that come with our sentience.
But things that are logically right are not always morally right, things that are legally right are not always either of the two. I am in no way condoning performing illegal activities, rather, I am supporting protests against Judicial rulings which people disagree with. If there is enough support, it could be overturned. The point is, there are many different "rights" in the world; you may be referring to the legal fashion, in which case you would be correct, as they are the highest Judicial power in the land; however, I was referring to moral and logical rightness, which are completely different. Regardless, that was a miscommunication on my part, and I apologize for not clarifying prior.
They certainly provide better arguments than you made :P
And in terms of Constitutional interpretation and enforcement, they currently have the final say (since the odds of a constitutional amendment being passed is absolutely 0).
Obviously the supreme court has authority over these matters, but that does't mean they are always right. They have messed up in other cases in the past. I'm not saying I'm always right, I just understand that everyone, including those of the supreme court, are human and make mistakes.
What do you define as a person? At 3 weeks in the womb, the heart starts beating, and the baby has all the basic organs and parts. At 5 weeks, hands begin to form, and it starts moving. The baby is conscious from week 1. If it is born pd-maturely at only 21 weeks, it has developed enough that it still has a 51% chance of survival. Scientifically, you cannot deny that a fetus is anything other than human, otherwise you are denying the fundamental laws of biogenesis. Human life is formed at contraception, not at birth. As our country learned from the times of slavery, and human, no matter what they look like, is a person with rights. Pre-born babies have these rights as well, even though they are less developed.
I don't know much behind the science of condoms and birth control, but I am against anything that ends life. Stopping life from ever forming is generally okay because you are not killing anyone.
Technically I am against condoms, but that is because of my religious beliefs that sex is only done for the purpose of procreation, and it must also be kept until marriage.
It is not a pointless argument because we are not debating whether or not condoms are right or wrong, but whether abortion is right or wrong. It is our conscience that tells us that killing is wrong, and the belief that all deserve a chance at life. It is especially important for abortion to not occur if there were no God, because that would mean that death is truly ''the end". The unborn would not have an afterlife, and would therefore have no more life whatsoever.
Where do you draw the line between being a person and not being a person, based on dependence? If someone was born with several extreme conditions that makes him just as dependent on treatment and meds as pre-born babies are on their mothers, is he not a person?
I got that fact from a website. who knows what stats are right nowadays.
What do you define as a person? At 3 weeks in the womb, the heart starts beating, and the baby has all the basic organs and parts.
That's actually 10 weeks.
What do you define as a person? At 3 weeks in the womb, the heart starts beating, and the baby has all the basic organs and parts.
Can you provide a single source for your claim that a baby is conscious from week one?
If it is born pd-maturely at only 21 weeks, it has developed enough that it still has a 51% chance of survival.
Actually 21 and less is 0%. 22 is 0-10, 23 is 10-35, 24 is 40-70, 25 is 50-80, 26 is 80-90, and it climbs from there.
Scientifically, you cannot deny that a fetus is anything other than human, otherwise you are denying the fundamental laws of biogenesis.
Not really. One can easily argue that without the presence of brainwaves, it is not "alive" and thus not a formed human being.
Human life is formed at contraception, not at birth.
That isn't some objective fact, that is your belief (which is fine). Personally, I find both to be absurd.
As our country learned from the times of slavery, and human, no matter what they look like, is a person with rights. Pre-born babies have these rights as well, even though they are less developed.
Only if they actually are people, which is the entire foundation of this argument and is a topic that is far from settled.
Maybe the stats from the website I was using are wrong. Or maybe your stats are wrong. My source for week 1 was college.studentsforlife.org. Where are the sources from your facts? Really. I'm surprised at this, because many people had always told me that to defend the unborn, I would have to go beyond proving that they are alive from conception, because that is already a well-known scientific fact. The following quote is from an article titled "The science of abortion: when does life begin?": "In a recent interview, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) declared it is a scientific fact that 'human life begins at conception.' He also said that leaders on the left who wag their fingers about the settled science of global warming are hypocrites when it comes to science, and someone should ask them if they accept the 'consensus of scientists that says that human life begins at conception.' Going further, the senator added, 'I’d like to see someone ask that question. It’s never asked. And that’s not even a debatable thing, we can actually see that happening. I mean, that is a proven fact. And yet that’s a scientific consensus they conveniently choose to ignore.'" If you still don't believe me, look it up. It is a fact when something becomes alive, not just a mere belief. They are people, just like the slaves were people (not 3/5ths of a person).
Maybe the stats from the website I was using are wrong. Or maybe your stats are wrong. My source for week 1 was college.studentsforlife.org. Where are the sources from your facts?
Since I can't find the original source, I will instead change my figures to reflect this source since I have it at hand and is reliable. Heartbeat: 6-7 weeks, Organs 9 weeks, viability outside of womb at least after 26 weeks.
I'm surprised at this, because many people had always told me that to defend the unborn, I would have to go beyond proving that they are alive from conception, because that is already a well-known scientific fact. The following quote is from an article titled "The science of abortion: when does life begin?": "In a recent interview, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) declared it is a scientific fact that 'human life begins at conception.' He also said that leaders on the left who wag their fingers about the settled science of global warming are hypocrites when it comes to science, and someone should ask them if they accept the 'consensus of scientists that says that human life begins at conception.' Going further, the senator added, 'I’d like to see someone ask that question. It’s never asked. And that’s not even a debatable thing, we can actually see that happening. I mean, that is a proven fact. And yet that’s a scientific consensus they conveniently choose to ignore.'
That is absurd, because there isn't even a scientific consensus on what criteria to use when determining when a person who has already been born is alive. Marco Rubio made a political, not scientific, claim.
Now, I'm going to link to wikipedia because this is one of the few times wikipedia really works. If you click on that, you can find citations to dozens of different scientific organizations positing dozens of different standards by which to judge when life exists.
If you believe there is a scientific consensus on when life begins, I would challenged you to provide a comprehensive list (not you yourself, I would think there would be a list like this, or this.
If you can provide evidence of such a consensus by reputable scientific organizations then I am open to recognizing that and changing my opinion, however.
(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce
Throughout history there have been many theories about life including materialism, hylomorphism and vitalism. Even today it is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life. The smallest contiguous unit of life is called an organism. Organisms are composed of one or more cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce (either sexually or asexually) and, through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations.[1] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.
So not only does that demonstrate my point but it also lists characteristics a fetus does not meet.
As for your definition, the fetus fails multiple of those criteria as well.
If a woman is barren, does that make her not alive? There are some characteristics that are not developed, but most are (cells, can grow, homeostasis, and maybe more but I'm not sure about some).
I didn't check the citation before, but what's wrong with it? It says "Gary C. Schoenwolf ... et al.. "Development go the Urogenital system." Larsen's human embryology etccccc
It makes is difficult if not impossible to look at the actual justification for that particular sentence if you cannot actually read the paper in question.
Fetuses are alive, but so are sperm, and the germs you kill when you clean your dishes. Simply saying "IT'S ORGANIC LIFE!" isn't enough.
The fact of the matter is, the cost of sacrificing a womans bodily autonomy by forcing her to birth (and likely raise) a child she did not intend to have far outweighs the cost of aborting a fetus when it is in this early stage of development.
Quick side note, "Embryonic life begins at conception" literally just means "Embryos begin when the embryo is formed".
Think back to slavery and the Holocaust – both of these cases displayed an instance in which the state determined the level of personhood in certain groups of human beings. It is not our job to decide who is a "person" and who is merely a living thing. The fact that someone is human, no matter what stage or state they are in, deems basic rights.
Technically it means 'life of the embryo begins when it is formed'. The person I was arguing with before was looking for proof for life of the embryo.
Actually I had been looking for proof of live for the human involved. I've been thinking about what you said and trying to parse what they have said (life of the embryo) vs what I had said (life of the human).
I suppose to maintain consistency I really don't consider the embryo to be a human being until it has brain waves. So yes, the embryo may be life. So is sperm, though. Neither are, in my opinion, humans.
The issue in comparing it to the holocaust is that the Nazi's did think that the Jews were people. For most of the time they didn't even think said people deserved to die, just to be forcefully relocated elsewhere. Even when the Final Solution started, they didn't start suddenly thinking they were some different species, they just thought Jews were evil/corrupt/demonic (etc) and didn't deserve to live.
They were considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation. Outside of that they were considered people, just "lesser" people (still horrible, but the analogy doesn't fit).
As for when an embryo becomes a human, that is a topic of heated debate (obviously) and is essentially the foundation of abortion debate. Personally, I think much of what makes someone "human" has to do with the brain, so I base it on the presence of brain waves.
This is more philosophical than that. The "species" is in fact Homo Sapien Sapien. Nobody denies or questions that. They simply question if it is a "person".
A fetus is alive, so is sperm. A fetus has the homo sapien genetic code, so does does sperm. A fetus meets some but not all of the conditions of "life" (referring to the varying different lists of conditions that have been presented). But neither of us thinks any of that makes a sperm a "person", and I simply don't think it makes a fetus a person either until said brainwaves exist.
You said yourself that to make something a human it has to have a certain level of brain activity... Now you're saying that there is no question that it is human from the start.
Anyone who puts the rights of a partially developed unborn human being above those of a woman, and considers that to be a reasonable, moral or even desirable stance, most certainly must hate women with intense ferocity
Abortion should be illegal because of the fact that a baby is a human that is murder. Lets suggest you murder someone for something that's illegal correct? Yea so it should be illegal and the father and mother could decide on adoption instead of abortion
The only way to repeal an amendment to the US constitution is to add another amendment that will replace or repeal the original. No 3/4 vote will do it under any circumstance. The Supreme Court has ruled abortion a constitutional right. However, a future Supreme Court could overrule a past decision and make abortion illegal or not a constitutional right. An amendment either way would also take the Supreme Court out of the picture of deciding the fate of abortion.
To say an unborn fetus who feels no emotion or pain is more valuable than the mother who carries it is simply wrong. If Hitler was a fetus would you allow the abortion? I assume most people who oppose it lean towards the right, and thus usually believe in a limited government. Not allowing a woman to choose what to do with her body is restricting a woman of her choice. What if a man was not allowed to get a vasectomy because those sperms COULD be people?
The idea of a fetus being potential is indeed correct. But one has no idea of if the fetus will grow up to be the next Hitler, or possibly the next Gandhi. But instead of focusing on the what ifs, why not focus on the reality of what we know: women have choices. What if the denial of the abortion could cause a student to drop out of college restricting THEIR potential? What if the women is financially unstable, and a baby could send her into bankruptcy? Who's choice is restricted then?
Actually, fetus' usually feel more pain because their sensory regulation is underdeveloped. Have you ever seen the video of the baby that has its mouth open in a scream as it is sucked out of the mother's womb in an abortion? I would not abort Hitler, because he wouldn't have done anything wrong yet, and therefore our actions would be murder. We are not defending the jews by aborting Hitler, we are killing an unborn child. Women should not have the choice to abort their child, just like a man should not have the choice to kill another man. Many women go into abortions feeling as if they have no choice, but there are definitely other options, like adoption and the use of pregnancy centers to aid you with finances and goods. Your vasectomy argument is irrelevant because those sperms are not yet people, unlike embryos.
Everyone deserves the choice to become a Hitler or a Gandhi, which can only exist if that person is alive after the womb. Women should be respected and loved, but the one choice that is not theirs is the right to kill their own child. That would be a shame, but for one, the student did not have to become pregnant in the first place, and two, adoption is always an option. Pregnancy centers always aid women in giving them the essential money and baby products for pregnancy and the raising of babies. They even provide counseling for post-abortive women who are depressed.
Here we can see the BlizzardBird, a curious creature that roams about the great lands of createdebate. The blizzardbird is currently engaging in its latest hobby; asking broad questions on complicated elements of genetics. Researchers are yet to understand why the mighty Blizzardbird does this so often, but many researchers are supporting the hypothesis that it has something to do with the curious activity known as "trolling" (a common pastime in this strange environment).
How is me asking "what point are you trying to make?" equal to me telling you off?
I did answer your questions. You asked what caused fear and stress. Now you're asking what causes them in me, which is different, but I'll answer that too:
Fear - y'know I still get a little scared od the dark sometimes. don't know why. I nearly got bit by a snake when I was younger, so snajes definitely cause fear in me.
Stress - Relationships, arguments, overdue assignments etc.
I guess I feel fear when confronted with fearful things, same deal for stress.
Now again I'll ask, how is this related to abortion?
You took the mick out of me for asking many questions and you said it was because I was a troll. You also banned me on the other thread for asking questions.
I'm not asking what causes fear and stress within the brain, I was asking what causes fear and stress in general, at the end.
"In general" means what "circumstances in general".
OK, I'll ask another APPOPRIATE question.
What does it mean to be afraid. How do you define fear?
What does it mean to be stressed? How do you define stress?
You're clearly getting a bit upset about that, so I'm just going to skip over the whole topic of whether you're a troll or not. Instead I'll just try answering your questions. I'm a bit confused on them though; you don't seem to like my earlier answers. This time I'm going to answer in the most succinct chemical answer I can. Full disclosure, I'm no neuroscientist, so this info is purely stuff I've researched on the spot.
What does it mean to be afraid? How do you define fear?
"The signals from the amygdala reach the hypothalamus, the area where corticotropic releasing hormone (HCT), which in turn is responsible for the release of cortisol [...] The information is also directed toward the locus coeruleus[...], responsible for producing norepinephrine"
What does it mean to be stressed? How do you define stress?
"Stress initiators, supported by areas such as thinking in the pre-frontal cortex, the hippocampal formation and the emotional triggers from the amygdala, create a sequence of activities through the HPA axis... [the] Hypothalamus, Pituitary, and the Adrenal system."
What causes a lack of fear in situations where we normally would.
Usually you might feel fearful in a situation that is dangerous, but that doesn't happen all the time, does it? Have there ever been instances where you have been in a situation where you normally would feel fearful yet don't feel any fear?
Blizz will literally say anything. It is so awesome. He will say in one argument that he is telling a lie, and the very next argument he will say he had never attempted lying. It's hilarious.
See I've never had any interest in shtick like that. It always bores me as soon as I find out he either has no desire or ability to engage in a real conversation.
See I've never had any interest in shtick like that. It always bores me as soon as I find out he either has no desire or ability to engage in a real conversation.
You have actually got a point to some extent, TrumpHair.
Although I'm not an idiot nor a liar, I do understand your reasoning.
People who go out of their way to lie and tell tales are just toxic and should be avoided at all costs.
There is nothing to gain from it at all.
Arguing with someone who tries to twist and turn everything is useless.
Anyone who tries to argue with someone who is deceitful cannot have any healthy objectives.
If anyone finds themselves arguing compulsively with some narcissistic liar who spins and turns everything round then that person needs to take a step back and realise that they are only bringing down their own feelings, and along with it, their own ability to reason as well.
It has been said of people like this "Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
I do indeed feel CartMan has some sort of unhealthy obsession that courses him to desire to continue arguing with me for no good purpose.
He can't get an answer from me, he can't change my mind.
He can't make me any different.
I always am and always will be just myself.
He's really in such a tail chase.
Cartman seems to never stop dripping with pedantry over me.
He needs to stop arguing and realise he's looking at a dead wall.
There's nothing lovely and sweet about me, I don't take it.
Aww, that sucks. I was hoping you could accidentally be right again. It doesn't matter what you believe should be rights. It is about what the constitution says. Thank you for saying that it was what you believes instead of passing it off as fact.
But, to answer your question it should be allowed because it can't be stopped. We can't stop abortion simply by passing laws to ban it.
Aww, that sucks. I was hoping you could accidentally be right again. It doesn't matter what you believe should be rights. It is about what the constitution says. Thank you for saying that it was what you believes instead of passing it off as fact.
You don't make any sense.
I'm both right and wrong?
I'm saying it 'bout you.
And no, abortion isn't in the constitution.
Which amendment is it in, and in which clause?
Quote it.
But, to answer your question it should be allowed because it can't be stopped. We can't stop abortion simply by passing laws to ban it.
Why can't abortion be stopped by passing a law on it?
Do you mean that it would be wrong or that it simply isn't possible?
Well, to help clear things up, I didn't say you were both right and wrong.
Which amendment is it in, and in which clause?
Quote it.
The 14th amendment guarantees the woman the right to abortion based on Roe v Wade.
Why can't abortion be stopped by passing a law on it?
People would just do it illegally. Abortion used to be illegal and people still did it. Alcohol was made illegal and people still drank it. Guns are made illegal and people still get them.
Do you mean that it would be wrong or that it simply isn't possible?
Well, to help clear things up, I didn't say you were both right and wrong.
It doesn't matter.
The 14th amendment guarantees the woman the right to abortion based on Roe v Wade.
Why does the 14th amendment guarantee the women the right to an abortion?
The 14th amendment allows women the ability to have an abortion, but not the right to have an abortion.
People would just do it illegally. Abortion used to be illegal and people still did it. Alcohol was made illegal and people still drank it. Guns are made illegal and people still get them.
Why not make it impossible for women to do it both illegally or legally?
You were confused about why I said something I didn't say.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Forget about it, this is a stupid conversation.
Anything that an amendment allows you to do is a right.
The amendment gives you the right to decide whether or not to attempt it, doesn't give you the right to commit it.
Anyway, why does the law and politics have to obey the constitution, it hasn't actually helped anybody. It doesn't actually work.
I don't really see the point in the constitution.
Whether or not it's principles are just, the constitution is just a quotation that obsessives like to cite when something goes majorly wrong that they can't come up with an explanation for.
We haven't quite figured out how to make things impossible to do. Any suggestions?
First of all what we need to study is how women are able to perform illegal abortions. How is it possible for women to perform abortions when it is illegal?
One way of stopping what is illegal from happening is having complete governmental surveillance.
Executing women who have abortions is also another step!
The amendment gives you the right to decide whether or not to attempt it, doesn't give you the right to commit it.
Not true. Amendments are not for governing thoughts.
Anyway, why does the law and politics have to obey the constitution, it hasn't actually helped anybody. It doesn't actually work.
I don't really see the point in the constitution.
The constitution describes the principles of the country. Why did you join in this debate if you don't even like the constitution?
Whether or not it's principles are just, the constitution is just a quotation that obsessives like to cite when something goes majorly wrong that they can't come up with an explanation for.
No. The government has to act according to the constitution.
First of all what we need to study is how women are able to perform illegal abortions. How is it possible for women to perform abortions when it is illegal?
Same way they do it when it is legal, just with shadier circumstances.
One way of stopping what is illegal from happening is having complete governmental surveillance.
That isn't really possible.
Executing women who have abortions is also another step!
Think about all the religions that punish people for their thoughts.
You keep saying these things, but with no reasoning.
Will you provide any?
You can't push the conversation beyond the stage it is at.
So, why did you say it did?
Why do you ask?
You can find out how to do anything on the internet. You can also get someone to help you.
A trained doctor to help you?
A trained doctor can help you when trained doctors no longer perform abortions?
You may be able to read how to use a fire-arm on the internet, doesn't mean you have the training nor the honed intuition to use them safely and accurately.
It is al about training.
If you are fast enough.
Heavy equipment being quickly employed on the streets?
It becomes affordable when you don't have to buy it. If you rent it you still pay money, but not as much as you asserted previously.
If you can't buy something, the prices for renting something could go up.
Black markets pay a greater price once something becomes illegal.
Yep.
Positive?
That doesn't sound possible at all. You are talking about employing millions of people simply for surveillance.
Millions of people are employed to do just that.
The people who are put in charge of these roles could merely have increased shifts and greater roles within their jobs.
We don't need millions more employed to fill that role.
We have almost the millions we need to do that task already.
I am sorry, but my dictionary doesn't say that impossible means less likely
The fact that you want something to be impossible as opposed to unlikely suggests something wrong.
Think about all the religions that punish people for their thoughts.
They don't though. They only ever threaten punishment.
Will you provide any?
You can't push the conversation beyond the stage it is at.
I constantly provide you exactly why I said what I said.
A trained doctor to help you?
A trained doctor can help you when trained doctors no longer perform abortions?
They don't have to be trained in order to succeed, and you haven't eliminated trained doctors from doing it outside of hospitals.
You may be able to read how to use a fire-arm on the internet, doesn't mean you have the training nor the honed intuition to use them safely and accurately.
It is al about training.
If you practice enough, you don't need training.
Heavy equipment being quickly employed on the streets?
If you are talented.
If you can't buy something, the prices for renting something could go up.
Black markets pay a greater price once something becomes illegal.
It is going to still be affordable. That's all I need to show. They can't raise the price too high or no one will buy it. It is still a capitalist system.
Positive?
Absolutely.
Millions of people are employed to do just that.
The people who are put in charge of these roles could merely have increased shifts and greater roles within their jobs.
We don't need millions more employed to fill that role.
We have almost the millions we need to do that task already.
We don't have millions of people doing surveillance right now. You want to massively increase what is watched and who is watched. It's not possible.
The fact that you want something to be impossible as opposed to unlikely suggests something wrong.
I agree that me wanting something that you said could be impossible to be impossible instead of unlikely makes you wrong for having said it.
They don't though. They only ever threaten punishment.
Mankind have certainly been made to suffer because of their thoughts due to religion. Think about all the people who have been punished for merely having different beliefs. Think about all the people who have emotional relationships being punished by religion that didn't approve of these emotional relationships.
Think about all the people who expressed having feelings for things that were deemed outside religions boundaries, they have been punished for it, think of all the demonising of people who had certain feelings for things, certain interests in things. People being labelled as witches, people being burned for demon possession.
Think of all the ostracism that has occurred.
Think of all the people who had feelings, thoughts and believes that were counter to communism, think of all the people being regarded as traitors of state merely due to having different beliefs.
Think again.
I constantly provide you exactly why I said what I said.
So do I.
They don't have to be trained in order to succeed, and you haven't eliminated trained doctors from doing it outside of hospitals.
Why wouldn't you need training in order to manage an abortion?
And what would happen if all of those trained doctors pass away?
No more trained doctors would be able to replace them in the future if it has been made illegal.
If you practice enough, you don't need training.
Who could train them?
If you are talented.
Yeah, I suppose a group of super-strong men could be employed to carry round the heavy equipment needed for an abortion.
I suppose they would need to be pretty athletic too.
They would cost even more to hire.
It is going to still be affordable. That's all I need to show. They can't raise the price too high or no one will buy it. It is still a capitalist system.
They can't raise the price too low either or they may not be paid enough in relation to the cost of providing an abortion.
Absolutely.
Let's see.
We don't have millions of people doing surveillance right now. You want to massively increase what is watched and who is watched. It's not possible.
How many people are in the police force?
How many people are in the MI6, MI5, GCHQ?
CIA, NSA etc?
I agree that me wanting something that you said could be impossible to be impossible instead of unlikely makes you wrong for having said it.
I didn't say executing women who have abortions alone would make it impossible.
There would have to be other factors needed as well in order to make it impossible.
Would you classify yourself as somehow being creative?
Tell us a good story, create a good narrative for a change.
There once was a bird that got stuck in a snow storm. She couldn't move at all. She decided to huff and puff and blow the snow away, but it was of no use. She then decided she should lie as much as possible. She started telling the most fanciful lives. Since she was so full of hot air she was able to melt all the snow. That bird decided to go through life living every day being prepared for a blizzard.
You are staring at me, but a dead wall is placed in front of me preventing you from seeing me properly.
There once was a bird that got stuck in a snow storm. She couldn't move at all. She decided to huff and puff and blow the snow away, but it was of no use. She then decided she should lie as much as possible. She started telling the most fanciful lives. Since she was so full of hot air she was able to melt all the snow. That bird decided to go through life living every day being prepared for a blizzard.
You are staring at me, but a dead wall is placed in front of me preventing you from seeing me properly.
Yep, it is never your fault.
That's not too bad at all.
What happens the bird next?
I want to hear more of the story.
The little bird decided to go around talking to all the other animals she could find. The other animals were having educated informed discussions and the little bird wanted to be a part of it. But, since the little bird was still affected by her previous snow trauma she continued lying to release hot air. The other animals tried to help the little bird, but the bird wouldn't listen. It turned out the little bird got some ice in her ears. The ice in her ears wouldn't melt because she was constantly letting out all of her hot air. The other animals tried to explain to the little bird that she needed to stop talking long enough to have the ice in her ears melt. Sadly the little bird was quite stubborn. The little bird continued to spew her hot air lies. Then one magical day, the little bird accidentally flew into a tree. The little bird had minor injuries, but chipped her beak. She was no longer able to tell lies and her ears started to clear up. The little bird finally started hearing the other animals. Once the little bird was able to hear the other animals clearly her world changed. She was much happier being educated by the more informed animals, and she was able to give up her lying ways.
The little bird decided to go around talking to all the other animals she could find. The other animals were having educated informed discussions and the little bird wanted to be a part of it. But, since the little bird was still affected by her previous snow trauma she continued lying to release hot air. The other animals tried to help the little bird, but the bird wouldn't listen. It turned out the little bird got some ice in her ears. The ice in her ears wouldn't melt because she was constantly letting out all of her hot air. The other animals tried to explain to the little bird that she needed to stop talking long enough to have the ice in her ears melt. Sadly the little bird was quite stubborn. The little bird continued to spew her hot air lies. Then one magical day, the little bird accidentally flew into a tree. The little bird had minor injuries, but chipped her beak. She was no longer able to tell lies and her ears started to clear up. The little bird finally started hearing the other animals. Once the little bird was able to hear the other animals clearly her world changed. She was much happier being educated by the more informed animals, and she was able to give up her lying ways.
And when that fails? Or when you are trying for a baby, then abruptly your social and economic status changes? Or you're raped? Or any one of another hundred reasons why a person could find themselves unwillingly pregnant?
Understand that I don't think anyone would support someone getting dozens of abortions because they like banging random people without protection. That's a horrible thing to do; it's wasteful and hurtful and pointless. People support abortion because we understand that, sometimes, it's the best damn choice available to the potential parent.
"If you are worried about contraceptive failure, use contraception"
Did that make any sense to you when you wrote it out?
You've literally just said "if you're concerned the condom might break and the pill might not work, wear a condom and go on the pill". I'm at a loss. What point were you trying to make here?
Multiple forms of contraception can still fail. Even if this isn't the case, there are still other circumstances where an abortion would be the best option.
It is not a poor response for a debate site. The fact remains that you have the right to your opinion, and the fact remains that abortion is not a right.
That has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not mentioned even once. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The burden of proof is not on the one making a negative claim, it is on the one making the positive claim, and I will take your burden of proof fallacy as a no.
Roe v. Wade is his is proof you retard. Now why dont you have a go at actually debating for once rather than just trying to name fallacies and telling people they are entitled to their own opinion. I can see what the FBI allegedly mean now.
Wimping out of the argument by saying "you have the right to your opinion, but you're wrong" is a piss-poor reply on a debate website. We're here to debate, not yell our opinions at each other then scurry off when someone asks hard questions.
Abortion is a right, it's been demonstrated to you several times on this thread. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that, at current, in your country, it is a right.
Work on your reading comprehension skills matey. Nobody minds if you disagree, we just wish you'd explain your reasoning or shut the hell up. It's a debate site. Debate, or go shrek yourself
Golly gee I wonder why that might be. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you stopped putting forward valid arguments ages ago and are now just shitposting for the hell of it.
Since you are new here: She doesn't understand fallacies, and she doesn't quite get the concept of rights. When she asks if something is a right she means "should it be a right". She also doesn't read arguments. Hopefully that helps you avoid frustration.
Thank you for asking a good question. I have multple solutions: Contraception to prevent conception of unwanted children, sex ed to education people on how to prevent conception, adoption reform, public awareness on adoption, welfare for those that need it, job traing, and I am probably forgetting something.
Background checks for adoptive parents, ending the loop hole that allows rapists to have visitation rights with their children, and so on. Parenting classes for adoptive parents would also help.
With the emergence of the brain damaging virus Zika abortion could very well become compulsory in some countries never mind a legal option. With experts predicting between 3 to 4 million cases there is no way many nations could provide the necessary welfare for such numbers. Even with this frightening disease gathering pace at an alarming rate the backward and superstitious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that abortion is an abomination in the eyes of God and the pregnancies where the presence of the Zika virus is identified must be allowed to proceed as normal. Apart from this new innovation the choice of abortion is exclusively a matter for the two partners involved providing their decision is compatible with the law and medical advice.
With the emergence of the brain damaging virus Zika abortion could very well become compulsory in some countries never mind a legal option. With experts predicting between 3 to 4 million cases there is no way many nations could provide the necessary welfare for such numbers. Even with this frightening disease gathering pace at an alarming rate the backward and superstitious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that abortion is an abomination in the eyes of God and the pregnancies where the presence of the Zika virus is identified must be allowed to proceed as normal. Apart from this new innovation the choice of abortion is exclusively a matter for the two partners involved providing their decision is compatible with the law and medical advice.
Even though I don't support it, abortion is a constitutional right. It is part of the rights life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There isn't anything the government can do about abortion if there is no law disallowing it.
Well is murder a constitutional right? Last I checked, spontaneous generation was a belief we threw away years ago, it's impossible for living things to come from non living things...
Some claim the life of the fetus has Constitutional rights. I don't buy that. Some of the founding fathers had slaves, and they didn't give women equal rights in the beginning including the right to vote. So it's laughable that somehow what they wrote was intended to apply to the fetus. But likewise, I don't think they had any thought in their heads at the time as to women having the right to abort their babies. It was nowhere on their radar. So Constitutionally I think it's a wash. There is neither a mandate to give the right nor a mandate to take it away.
With all that said, i still think the Supreme Court is the only entity with the authority to rule on the matter for the country as a whole. And yes I do think they can rule for the WHOLE country. This type of individual behavior is not something at the whim of individual states. That would be like letting each state decide on racism or sexism or whatever. Certain basic human liberties need to be decided at the national level and I think abortion is one of them.
Currently the Supreme Court sided with abortion rights. Perhaps the reason they made that decision in Roe vs Wade would go away if indeed it is Constitutionally a wash like I say. But then somehow nationally we still need to decide, I think that still should be the Supreme Court, and I actually think they'd still let it stand.
yes as it is somebody else's body and no government should dictate what somebody else should do with their body because they don't have a right to tell us what to do (unless we are being an indecent citizen)
A Supreme Court Decision in 1973 that we called Roe v. Wade
Ya see....Federal law has protected a woman's right to choose an abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff, was an unmarried pregnant Texas woman who sought an abortion, but was denied one under Texas law. She filed a federal lawsuit under the pseudonym "Jane Roe" to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional. Roe argued that a law prohibiting her from obtaining an abortion violated her constitutional right to privacy.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in 7-2 vote, agreed with Roe that Texas's law criminalizing abortion violated her right to privacy. But the Court held that states do have an interest in ensuring the safety and well-being of pregnant women, as well as the potential of human life.
Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant women may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing a pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:
During a pregnant woman's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
During the second trimester, the Court held, a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman.
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
The Court further held that a fetus is not a person protected by the constitution. The decision in Roe v. Wade did not eliminate the controversy surrounding abortion, however. The laws surrounding abortion, ranging from methods, to funding, to parental consent and more, continue to be debated and shaped to this day. The following are a few examples.
Pro choice people keep telling us we can't tell a woman what she can do wit her uterous. Can you even imagine the lack of sincerity it takes to keep spewing such deceptive garbage? if the woman has trouble with her uterous, by all means do whatever you can to heal it. It's your body!
If there is another living growing human life inside a woman's body, the mother has NO RIGHT to interfere with that baby's uterous by killing the Baby. Talk about hypocritical liars! They are the ones interfering with a Girl's uterous when they support killing her.
There is no debating this type of clinical denial. These people who defend abortion (other than extreme cases) are either living in the shame and guilt of an abortion, and spend their lives attacking pro life people for making them feel bad, or simply want to be ble to eliminate the consequences of their choices.
Have you ever heard such anger from pro abortion people? They are vicious and for what? They hate a pro life person for merely trying to protect an innocent life. No matter if you agree or not, why on earth would you be so hateful towards someone with the compassion to respect all innocent life?
There can be only a couple reasons.... guilt or the desire to prevent the consequences of your choices.
Now start talking again about life of mother or extreme cases to excuse the inhumanity.... LOL (NO ONE PREVENTS THOSE EXCEPTIONS) If you have a problem in your uterous where the Baby could cause your death, then no one is preventing your choice! QUIT USING THAT EXCUSE! IT MAKES YOU LOOK THE FOOL!
"Pro choice people keep telling us we can't tell a woman what she can do wit her uterous. Can you even imagine the lack of sincerity it takes to keep spewing such deceptive garbage? if the woman has trouble with her uterous, by all means do whatever you can to heal it. It's your body"!
How dare you talk about uterus's when you cant even spell the word uterus right?
"If there is another living growing human life inside a woman's body, the mother has NO RIGHT to interfere with that baby's uterous by killing the Baby".
Um... Yes she does. Its her body and the baby cant even formulate thoughts yet. So she has every right. I mean, The baby cant pop its head out of her vagina and be like "yo I need you to not kill me. I know what I want to be when I grow up".
"Talk about hypocritical liars! They are the ones interfering with a Girl's uterous when they support killing her".
And if it is a male "baby" ? Or am I just lost ?
"There is no debating this type of clinical denial".
I deems this true. Proof ? Debating with you.
T"hese people who defend abortion (other than extreme cases) are either living in the shame and guilt of an abortion",
Last time I checked, I wasn't feeling any of those things a out abortion. Do not just suggest what people are feeling about thing.
"and spend their lives attacking pro life people for making them feel bad, or simply want to be ble to eliminate the consequences of their choices".
Still suggesting what others feel.
"Have you ever heard such anger from pro abortion people? They are vicious and for what? They hate a pro life person for merely trying to protect an innocent life".
Pro abortion people have its vicious people. Just like pro life people. Do not make pro life people sound so innocent.
"No matter if you agree or not, why on earth would you be so hateful towards someone with the compassion to respect all innocent life"?
Since this was directed to someone else, I will not answer this.
"There can be only a couple reasons.... guilt or the desire to prevent the consequences of your choices".
Suggesting again. ding.
"Now start talking again about life of mother or extreme cases to excuse the inhumanity.... LOL (NO ONE PREVENTS THOSE EXCEPTIONS) If you have a problem in your uterous where the Baby could cause your death, then no one is preventing your choice! QUIT USING THAT EXCUSE! IT MAKES YOU LOOK THE FOOL"!
