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.
I say parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order. In effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition.
And if needing parental consent became effective it could just lead to 'back street' abortions. Which are far more dangerous to the mother and the baby than just being able to go to a clinic.
Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents’ consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their children’s consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents’ consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these if not more important.
Abortion should be one of the only exceptions to that rule. Children may not be able to do some things without their parent's consent but abortion is much more an important decision, a decision that could be life changing. Getting a tatoo or an ear piercing is a totally different subject on a much lower level of concern in a parent's eye ( one would hope ).
Whether or not a teenager/woman wants to keep her baby should be totally up to her and nobody else.
Absolutely not. I'm 16 years old, sexually active, and I've had one--exactly one--pregnancy scare, even though I've used protection every time. I have many, many friends--both older and younger--who have been in the same situation. Involving parents makes matters more difficult, and they may even override the pregnant woman's decision.
Under the law, parental notification provisions are only legal if they allow the underage person to "opt out" of notification via some other legal process, usually appearing before a judge. This was decided in Ohio v. Akron and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and part of the rationale for the decision was that young people may be subject to abuse or coercion if they disclose a pregnancy to their parents, or may already be victims of incest (hence having the need for an abortion). Such "opt-out" provisions generally require the pregnant minor to appear before the court, and the court will then consider factors such as her maturity and her circumstances in determining whether parental notification should be waived. I think this is a reasonable balance between the interests of the pregnant minor and those of the minor's parents.
I am going to make my argument assuming that it is already accepted that abortion should be legal in general because that is a separate issue.
Here are some the reasons abortion is legal: Primarily people have a right to determine what happens to their bodies. But also we know from history that many women will abort babies themselves if they do not have access to legal abortions and we want to protect those women. Also it is detrimental to society to have unwanted babies being born just because they could not be aborted as they are more likely to be in poverty and not raised properly and will therefore be statistically more likely to gravitate toward crime.
Specifically regarding underage women the first point is debatable. As has been mentioned minors need consent for surgical procedures. But I believe the circumstances unique to abortion override this. If parental consent is required for abortions it logically follows that many underage girls and women will be prevented by their parents from getting legal abortions. And you therefore face the two other reasons I gave for abortion being legal in general. In this instance I think the illicit abortion reason is the most salient. Underage girls have very strong reasons for not wanting to be pregnant. Please don't mention "they should have thought of that before they had sex etc." because it is irrelevant. It is too late at this point. Understandably they may be very desperate to terminate their pregnancies, and being young they are possibly even more likely to do something rash like attempt a self-abortion. In my opinion the safety of underage pregnant women keeping in mind the strong possibility they will try to abort their babies themselves, outweighs the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. I think that almost all of the time parents will make better medical decisions for their children and their children are not old enough to make such decisions. However I think almost everyone old enough to get pregnant understands pregnancy and abortion well enough to make their own decision. There is a bit of a difficult situation with very young girls like 12 years old, and I have difficulty with making a decision on this. In general, however, I think underage pregnant women should not need parental consent to have abortions.
I do believe that parents should be informed on the fact that their child is receive an abortion. It is their right.
But, they should only receive this information once their child is getting that abortion. Parents do not have the right to stop a child from getting an abortion.
I would make a longer argument, but it seems a shit load of people have already made all the arguments.
As someone who comes from a foster home, let me tell you, teenage girls do not want to have to tell their parents they've been spreading their legs, especially if it's to black men in the south. So what happens when this girl who did just that has to ask her racist daddy for an abortion? She'll make the smart choice: coathanger > daddy kicking her in the stomach until she miscarries.
1.)Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and to prevent her from making a bad decision.
2.)The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2) living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give all of their time to their children. If the mother’s parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place.
3.)The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important.
Your reasoning, assuming require is a prerequisite, assumes every pregnant teenager has the type of relationship with a parent or gaurdian where they can tell them anything.
The fact is, the world isn't a Norman Rockwell painting.
Many of these young girls are abused by their gaurdian. Many times, the male gaurdian is the father.
Requiring consent is for many the same as simply outlawing it.
If a young girl knows they need to get this consent, they ofen simply will say nothing. They will not get any kind of medical treatment, they won't get ultrasounds, they won't find out if their own life may be in danger by bringing the child to term,
and worse, many many times, they will seek an abortion from a place with no license to give abortions.
Requirements in this arena can only be a bad thing.
Encourage those who can to tell their parents, help those who cannot, and educate them as much as possible.
But requirements only lead to more and greater problems.
A healthy family would not need a law to force their daughter to tell them; an unhealthy family would put the girl into unnecessary peril. Your points are very true for a healthy family; however, not every family is healthy.
Also, you don't need parental permission to have sex, to get married in the event of a pregnancy, and a parent cannot force a child to abort- so why, why, why would you let a parent effectively force an underage girl into birthing a baby that she doesn't want? Would those repercussions not be more emotionally scarring than destroying a clump of cells?
The choice of getting an abortion is serious indeed; however, it should be the decision of the mother and only the mother.
Parents need to know what's going on in their children's lives when they are still underage. As far as I'm concerned a 13 year old kid has no choice because she can't think it all through properly. It's her body but the parents are still responsible for her until she comes of legal age.
What if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.
Parents are biased in much more than this and yet they are still responsible for their child's welfare. I cannot think of any circumstance that would dictate having a child while underage is a good thing whether or not the parents are biased in that way. They may be biased but there may be conditions to that bias.
Some parents believe abortion is the worst thing you could possibly do so if they choose to keep the baby it could ruin their child's life before said child has a chance to decide what he/she wants to do.
Thought I am in agreement with what you said, I still think that the girl should take the opinion of the mother and father but be able to make the final decision on her own.
When you remove choice you create slaves. In saying that a thirteen year-old has no choice, you're saying that they aren't granted civil liberties. You're effectively not regarding them as a person anymore. For instance, if a fifteen year-old girl gets raped, and knocked up as a result, but doesn't want her mother to know because the mother is a suicidal rape victim with recent trauma herself, that's a good reason not to tell the parents. Or if the girl just simply doesn't want her parents to know she's not a virgin anymore, that's also a good reason. Why? Because it's her choice. When the law forces people to do things against their own choices is when it infringes upon their civil liberties. Forcing people to reveal their secrets to anyone, unless they are of legal importance, is a violation of civil liberties, and simply saying "It's not her choice" is the same argument which was given before the violation of civil liberties throughout history.
Being under 18 doesn't make someone a second-class citizen.
The baby growing within the girl is a separate and unique person. Neither the girl or any person in this world has a right to kill (abort) the life growing within her womb!
Feel free to counter those facts. (I perceive we agree!)
Great, you too have never heard of a human fetus or human embryo. Too bad that the supposed authorities you appeal to have never heard of an embryo or fetus that is not human.
What species of fetus or embryo is not a person?
Careful with indefinite negatives, perhaps your law prof. has yet to inform you of such.
"What species of fetus or embryo is not a person?"
No species of embryo/fetus is a "person" under U.S. or European law.
"Too bad that the supposed authorities you appeal to have never heard of an embryo or fetus that is not human."
How's that? Did you never do a fetal pig dissection in high-school biology? Or did you think that all species other than humans reproduced by budding or mitosis or some other wild fashion?
Thank you for your implied concession of my argument.
Slow down and consider what I have stated.
All animals were at one time an embryo and then a fetus. But not all embryos and fetuses are human. So whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human or a human fetus is not a person?
"whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human . . . "
Okay, uh, I think we'll just let that one slide . . .
"or a human fetus is not a person"
Because "human fetus" and "human person" are different. Kinda like "human sperm" and "human person" are different. Or like "human ovum" and "human person" are different. Or like "human blastula" and "human person" are different . . .
It's akin to saying that a human fetus is not a person. Kind of pointless wouldn't you say.
There are millions and millions of things that are not a person. So, what is the point of claiming that an organism is not a person when in fact the organism is a human fetus. Tell me what a thing is and forget about telling what a thing is not. For in doing so you have posited in the stead of negating a certain attribute of a certain subject.
Don't forget the subject by focusing on the denial of an attribute.
I know quite well what it means. You keep making grand assertions and then challenging me to prove them wrong (which I keep doing). But, you have yet to offer any support that suggests that any of your assertions are right. You just keep shouting "red herring straw man." Support your point or concede that you don't have one, because this is getting boring.
You clearly do not know what a red-herring is in a debate. For had you been aware of that particular fallacy you would have recognized that you have not proven as wrong any statement of mine.
Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are. I can also see that your "debate strategy" is merely to attempt to shunt every possible proof burden onto the other party in a debate, so you can prove nothing at all but make your debate opponent run in circles to prove and disprove every word stated by either side. Homey ain't playin' dat. Do your own work for godssakes.
And I've disproved ALL of your points, insofar as you had any to begin with. You've yet to offer a single point of proof. Not a one.
Your initial statement was: "The baby growing within the girl is a separate and unique person."
Counterargument: It is correctly a "fetus" or "embryo," and a fetus or embryo is not a person.
You then asked what the point of asserting that a fetus or embryo is not a person would be. And I referred you, via analogy, back to the fact that a "fetus" or "embryo" does not fit the definition of "person."
You have yet to refute that, except perhaps by the implied concession of your own argument, as really the only logical way to read your question "So whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human or a human fetus is not a person?" is to read it as "it's just bloody obvious that a cow is not human in the same way it's bloody obvious that a fetus is not a person, and my original argument about the 'baby growing in the girl' being a 'separate and unique person' was just plain stupid and wrong; sorry, dunno what the hell I was thinking when I tried to claim that a fetus is a person; that's dumb; my bad."
Because a fetus is not a person in the same way sperm is not a person.
We can argue that "personhood" does or should be considered to happen at some point ranging anywhere from conception until death. You seem to want to place "personhood" closer to conception on the grounds that the embryonic being will eventually come to resemble a living human being. The court has placed "personhood" at basically birth, a few arcane property laws notwithstanding. Justice Stevens, with whom I personally agree, has argued that "personhood" should be seen as a spectrum of rights and interests that develop and vest as the human develops.
But the ultimate point here is, the fact that something might become a person does not a person make. If it did, you would be commiting mass murder every time you pulled one off, and menstruation would be a criminal act.
What a fetus is doesn't matter, what matters is that what you're doing by aborting it is stopping the fetus from turning into a person. A wonderful human being. You were fetus too, everyone was.
Sure we all were, but had we been aborted what would the difference of been? Your life wouldn't of existed therefore the world would have moved on as though you had never been, which you hadn't.
A fetus is a parasite living off of the female host, what the female host chooses to do with said parasite should be her choice.
So what you're trying to argue is that all babies start out as parasites, giving a disadvantage to the mother (not a host as you put it) that is nursing it to life? Sure, I agree that the world will move on, but you're not giving he/she a chance to even experience life and make a difference.
but you're not giving he/she a chance to even experience life and make a difference.
F that. There are thousands of children that never get a chance to make a difference. Children that are starving to death, and dieing of treatable diseases. Forget the unborn child that hasn't made its way out of the womb, worry about the child that is alive right now suffering in some third world country.
Am I biased because I think virtually all abortions should be illegal?
Even when abortion is legal, I think an underage girl should definitely have to have consent for this. Can she do anything else without parental consent? Think of it like an operation. Other than trauma in an ER, an underage girl would have a very small chance of getting a surgery without her parents involved.
But this is a decision the girl will have to live with for the rest of her life, and no one would argue that the role of a mother is not an adult role.
Certainly whatever he situation was, this decision must be made by the person most effected: the pregnant girl.
She could easily give the baby up for adoption. It's not a bad institution. My aunt was pregnant a long time ago and probably could have gotten an abortion without anyone knowing, but she went through the pregnancy (I'm not sure how old she was) and gave her baby boy up for adoption. Now, he is actually a police officer in the NYPD, saving lives and fighting criminals!
In an ideal world every baby given up for adoption could be given to a mother and there would be no unplanned pregnancies and no one would be hungry because bread and cheese would fall from the sky.
In reality, however, what we are talking about is a little girl forced to go through 9 months of labor, have a child and then give that child up to strangers (or more likely sent to a foster home). I'm not sure if you've ever known anyone who had to go through a pregnancy, but my sister described it like this: "imagine you just ate way too much for dinner and are up all night because you're stomach hurts, and you've been sitting in the bathroom because you feel like you're going to throw up. Now imagine that for 9 months."
You are asking a girl to give up those 9 months of her childhood and probably be ostracized by those in her community.
You also claim that adoption isn't a bad institution by giving an example from the point of view of the mother. You don't talk about what it's like for the kid who didn't grow up with parents.
In general, yes, I agree we need to reduce the number of abortions, but this should be by teaching sex-ed better and reducing poverty levels so that more people who become pregnant have the financial ability to take care of their children, not by limiting the rights of mothers by telling them whether they should or should not have children. Nor should we take away the right of a young girl, who is going through what is clearly a traumatic experience, to seek her parents approval to make a decision about her own body and her own life.
All abortions may not be illegal, but all abortions are the termination of life.
Never in the history of my debating career has any pro-abortionist been reduced to anything other than a willful murderer. Your position is just! Stay the course!
Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.
Then it will be easy for you to identify the fallacies contained in your last attempt to refute my proposition.
So, now prove to me you can identify the fallacies contained in you own argument.
Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.
Are you so pressed for time that you cannot spare one minute to answer my challenge? Or, are you simply an incompetent debater?
The school nurse cannot give you an asprin unless a parent allows it, but an abortion doctor does not need consent to perform a potentially dangerous procedure.
What if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.
So? Parents make choices for their children all day everyday. Some are right. Some are wrong. As long as the parent is ultimately responsible for the child, the parent gets to decide.
And if that parent has been abusing the child, and may abuse the child again for being pregnant - or may even be responsible for impregnating the child? There needs to be a way to opt out of parental notification requirements, or else the most vulnerable pregnant minors will be victimized even further.
So? Are you saying that only an under aged girl is capable of making the right decision? Some will make the right decision and some wont. The parents should be able to make the best decision but if not, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. Think about it. If caught having sex, who pays the price? Not her. Her boyfriend gets charged for statutory rape or child abuse! If they are both under aged, they can both be charged (the penalty wont be the same because they are minors but they get charged).
No no no, I am saying that sometimes a girl can make the correct decision. But a parent can always make a correct decision as well, there is still the chance that it could be the wrong choice. I believe in Pro Choice, which I think also entails the carrier of the child no matter what the age to have a decision in whether or not she keeps or loses the baby.
So all in all I think that the girl should be able to take the opinions of her parents but be able to make the final choice on her own.
So you're going to argue that something that can't think, feel, see, remember or do any of the other things that make us human deserves equal rights as a thinking feeling little girl?
The girl gets her rights because it's her body, to do with as she will.
The doctor gets his rights from the girl when she asks for the abortion.
The girl ( not woman ) still has her whole life ahead of her, her parents should not be able to decide whether or not her life is ruined because of 1 little mistake she made as a kid.
So you're going to argue that something that can't think, feel, see, remember or do any of the other things that make us human deserves equal rights as a thinking feeling little girl?
Because you failed to identify the subject of your argument, you have unwittingly revealed your ignorance of the subject at hand. The term, something, indicates you know not the subject of your argument.
#1. All corporations of the United States don’t think, feel, see, or do anything that makes them human. However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.
#2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human!
#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!
Next-
The girl gets her rights because it's her body, to do with as she will.
From whom has the girl been given a right to kill the development of a human embryo or human fetus?
Clearly there are two distinct life forms, the girl and the human embryo and later a human fetus.
Last-
The doctor gets his rights from the girl when she asks for the abortion.
Wow, where were you pre-Roe v. Wade. Had you been born in 1955 you could of argued the same bs and saved the supreme court much time! (If you were born in 1955 you would have been 18 in 1973)
The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!
Don’t think I am intending to insult or ridicule you as a person. I was debating this question long before you were a human fetus. So, please recognize that the derision contained within my post is completely directed at the message and not the messenger.
"The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!"
Umm . . . obviously you didn't actually read Roe v. Wade, or Doe v. Bolton, or Akron v. Akron Reproductive Services, or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, because they are all about the right of the woman. The doctor has no "right" to choose an abortion for a woman. I just spent three months doing an extended analysis of the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence for the law prof I work for, topped off by another two-week intensive on abortion jurisprudence and constitutional law -- and before that, I spent several months researching international abortion law. I assure you, the Court has quite firmly stated that the right of the woman to choose an abortion prior to viability of the fetus is a central and re-affirmed principle of its decisions, and not at all "secondary." But, neither is it unlimited. States have an interest in protecting fetal life, can ban post-viability abortion, and can regulate procedures to a considerable degree. But there is no "right" accorded to the doctor save the freedom from prosecution for performing a non-criminal abortion -- in other words, the same "right" you have to not get arrested for going to work. It is not a right concerning the choice to have or not to have an abortion -- that right belongs to the woman.
Also, there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, not seven.
................................
"All corporations of the United States . . . have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl."
That's just utter, utter nonsense. Ask any attorney.
Ask your law prof. for whom you work what a red-herring is. I will give you another opportunity to reconsider my statements. If your rebuttal remains as stated I will demonstrate the invalidity of your counter argument.
Also, there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, not seven.
Obviously you are the one who has not read and understood . Reading comprehension is the pre-requisite of understanding law. I read and understand that 7 of 9 justices voted for R. v. W..
State one right that a business corporation does not have in comparison of the rights humans have. You might ought to ask an attorney that question. Better yet, hire a team of attorneys for your enlightenment.
This is all play and not serious at this point in our discourse. You can determine the course of the nature of our debate.
"State one right that a business corporation does not have in comparison of the rights humans have."
Voting. Refusal or consent to medical treatment. Serving on juries. Attending public schools. Marrying. Having or not having a child. Holding public office. Bringing a variety of different kinds of legal actions that corporations can't bring.
Yes, Roe v. Wade had two dissents. If your somewhat vague statement was intended to acknowledge that it was a 7-2 decision, then it was correct, albeit unclear.
And my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. I understand just fine that you are confusing the abortion right with the act of performing an abortion, and those are simply not the same thing.
Privileges are not rights Banshee. You correctly enumerated a few privileges but not one thing you claimed is a right.
I did not confuse abortion right with the act of abortion (which by the way is medical description of a procedure) I think you mis-construed the entirety of my argument.
I was very clear as to the number of justices who consented, it was not necessary to speak of the number of justices nor the number of dissenters. I clearly identified the number of justices who voted for rvw.
Remember, the inability to partake in a supposed given right is not evidence of the absence of a right. It simply is an evidence of what right that is provided by law. Wal-mart may not be able to marry K-mart but it can certainly merge with K-Mart. And if there shall come a time that Wal-Mart can copulate with K-mart, Wal-mart has that right now!
"You correctly enumerated a few privileges but not one thing you claimed is a right."
Let's see. The 15th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 19th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And the 24th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." Funny, I don't see the word "privilege" in there at all.
In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), SCOTUS said that marriage was "a fundamental right" -- not a fundamental privilege, but a fundamental right. A corporate merger is not a fundamental right, nor does it bestow the same rights and obligations as does a marriage.
The right to serve on a jury is part and parcel of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial -- except of course that only natural persons, and not corporations, can serve on juries. The Sixth Amendment, again, does not say "privilege of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." It says "right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."
Next, you need to cite corporate law. Nothing you claimed denies the rights of a corporation to do so likewise, provided that the corporation is capable of exercising said right. Remember, that which written law does not forbid is permissible.
As a help, you must find a law that forbids corporations from doing that which citizens are allowed. That is your burden of proof.
No, next you need to back up your position, because I've already backed up mine and proven yours wrong. So now it's your turn to cite corporate law that asserts that corporations do have the aforementioned rights.
You are asking me to prove a negative. I am not an idiot as you pretend I am. There is no law that proves corporations do not have the same rights. Sorry! you chose to take your position of your own accord. I'm surprised the law prof. has not taught you that axiom.
Your supporting argument did not in no way or form deny that a corporation has the same rights as a human. Your argument only affirmed the rights of a citizen! Therefore, you have failed to prove your own argument!
Don't let your law prof. read your debate, you may be fired for such.
You sure seem like an idiot. Here's your debate strategy:
You: Grand assertion!
Other: That's wrong.
You: Prove it!
Other: Here's proof.
You: Red herring! Straw man!
Other: Okay, support your point with a counter-proof, then.
You: No! I can't! That must mean I'm right anyway! Instead of proving my point, since I can't, I'll just spout a few gratuitous insults.
Other: Are you like, four years old?
You: Red herring straw man you fail! Red herring straw man you're fired! I know you are but what am I! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Lookit lookit lookit lookit mom! Mom! Mom!
. . . and so forth.
Sorry -- that may work well at your pre-school, but it doesn't work with thinking adults.
And actually, it was you who asked me to prove a negative: "find a law that forbids corporations from doing that which citizens are allowed" or in other words, "find the absence of a right." I told you to begin by proving the contrary affirmative -- cite some law that proves the existence of the aforementioned rights as applied to corporations. Since you can't, because there isn't any, you got pissy and insulting. So again, your behavior sure looks like idiocy to me.
You have explicitlydemonstrated that your supposed discourse with a pre-school idiot has reduced you to nothing more than a babbling thinking adult who no longer can control your emotions and who also submits an argument: You: Red herring straw man you fail! Red herring straw man you're fired! I know you are but what am I! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Lookit lookit lookit lookit mom! Mom! Mom!
. . . and so forth.
Sorry -- that may work well at your pre-school, but it doesn't work with thinking adults.
You have much to learn.
You have lost the debate. And your own babbling evidences that fact. Grow-up and move-along!
Well, you didn't convince me, and you didn't convince anybody else, of anything other than the fact that you are infantile. I gave proofs, you slung insults. So I can't say I'm deeply moved by your opinions on who lost this debate, or on who needs to grow up.
Because you failed to identify the subject of your argument, you have unwittingly revealed your ignorance of the subject at hand. The term, something, indicates you know not the subject of your argument.
Fine if you want me to use specific word: fetus or embryo.
#1. All corporations of the United States don’t think, feel, see, or do anything that makes them human. However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.
Irrelevant to this debate.
#2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human!
Is menstrual blood human by your definition? Or an ovum? Cervical mucous?
#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!
Not actually an argument.
Clearly there are two distinct life forms, the girl and the human embryo and later a human fetus.
Try separating these two distinct life forms and see what happens.
Allow me to explain my position more fully since you haven't seemed to grasp it (despite your claimed experience in debating this matter).
Before a sperm and an egg come together, there is no doubt that they do not deserve any of the rights awarded to people. Would you agree with this?After a baby comes out of his mothers womb, that baby has essentially all the rights that are afforded to a person, agreed? So obviously during the 9 months of pregnancy there is some point at which the embryo/fetus gains these rights.
The two extremes are:
-The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.
-The moment that the baby leaves it's mothers womb (or really more commonly, when the baby can survive outside the womb.)
As for the first, I think that it's ridiculous to assume that a one celled organism should be afforded any rights, and as for the second I would think that mere physical position (inside rather than outside of womb) shouldn't be the determining factor.
Instead there should be some type of middle ground in which the embryo gains rights over time as it develops. When certain rights should be afforded is obviously something for debate, but this debate becomes meaningless when people assign supernatural characteristics to an embryo, like a soul (not that you have done this).
The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!
So you think there are doctors out there who are finding little pregnant girls and giving them abortions against their will?
Excuse me? My reply is the logical contradiction of your original statement! Why are you ignoring the irrelevancy of your own statement? And again, you have claimed that one of my statements (your red-herring is laughable) is not an argument, which is precisely what irrelevant means in the term red-herring! I see! You ignore the irrelevancy or your own points when the opposition relevantly contradicts your irrelevant statement/s.
#2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human!
Is menstrual blood human by your definition? Or an ovum? Cervical mucous?
Logic is not your strong point. Had I stated that all that originates within the womb of a female homo is human then your question would be valid. If you carefully read my statement you will discover that your question is an attempted red-herring, again. For clarity, I did not state that all that originates in the womb of female homo is human, so stop drawing invalid inferences and asking irrelevant questions. Definition? I certainly hope you do not think I have defined anything according to my #2 statement.
#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!
Not actually an argument.
I addressed this absurdity in the beginning of this post.
Allow me to explain my position more fully since you haven't seemed to grasp it (despite your claimed experience in debating this matter).
My experience in debate concerning this question has nothing to do with countering your series of invalid questions and accusations. You have not made clear, even partially, your position. So, I am not the one at fault, you on the other hand are responsible for informing me of your position. Unless of course you would prefer that I attempt to draw invalid inferences from a series of questions and invalid inferences you have submitted.
So you think there are doctors out there who are finding little pregnant girls and giving them abortions against their will
Another red-herring in the form of a question!
The term, secondary, should not be understood by any person as involuntary. Read my statement and you will not find any justification for considering that I affirmed that which your question implied!
Lest I forget, there are many species of fetus and embryo, I recommend you vigilantly clarify which species thereof you are referencing.
Human fetus
Human embryo
Ask yourself both of the following questions:
• Am I justifying the killing of a human fetus or embryo?
Are there laws about ending the life of corporations? No? Then it's not relevant.
You said what makes us human is that we came from the womb of a human being. This is more a symptom of our humanity then the root cause, but I still don't really see the point.
You keep using the term red-herring, but I can't say that you're doing so correctly.
Allow me to explain this again since you seemed to ignore the important part of my last argument:
-The moment before fertilization = no rights
-The moment of birth = all rights
Somewhere in between rights are gained. I submit that this should be gradual, and not at the point of conception or the point of birth for reasons I have already stated.
Finally, another point you cannot grasp: a human fetus is not a human person. There is a difference (similar to the difference in rights of someone age 12, and someone age 25) and the law should certainly recognize this.
You said what makes us human is that we came from the womb of a human being. This is more a symptom of our humanity then the root cause, but I still don't really see the point.
I did not suppose you would. You were too entangled in refuting that which I never asserted.
Allow me to explain this again since you seemed to ignore the important part of my last argument:
-The moment before fertilization = no rights
-The moment of birth = all rights
Somewhere in between rights are gained. I submit that this should be gradual, and not at the point of conception or the point of birth for reasons I have already stated.
I was never debating anything that can be inferred as my attempt to determine rights of a human fetus or embryo. And consequently I am not compelled to engage in a separate debate. So yes, I concur that I intentionally ignored the red-herring argument.
Finally, another point you cannot grasp: a human fetus is not a human person. There is a difference (similar to the difference in rights of someone age 12, and someone age 25) and the law should certainly recognize this.
You keep using the term red-herring, but I can't say that you're doing so correctly.
Because you are arguing the rights or the absence of rights of a human fetus or embryo as a response to my argument of the little girl’s right you are changing the subject of the debate. Likewise you also argue that I have asserted that a human fetus is a human person when in fact I did no such thing. That too is a red-herring argument.
If you still dispute my claim of your red-herring assertions I will gladly share more information.
According to the American Professors Hansmann (of Yale University) and Kraakman (of Harvard University), the five defining characteristics of the modern corporation are:
separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)
limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)
transferable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)
delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors
investor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.
Anywhere in here are there laws about ending the life of the corporation? No. Did you even read that article before posting it? Did you expect me not to read it but instead just take your word for it? I am not that naive, nor stupid enough to believe that there would be laws about killing something that is not alive.
So allow me to repeat myself for a third time: not relevant to this debate.
Did you just learn the word the word red-herring, because you use it as sporadically and inaccurately as a 7 year old who just learned the meaning of a curse word.
Okay, now that we've moved past these sidebars let's deal with what this debate is about.
You claim that this debate is not about the rights of a fetus, but instead about the rights of a girl. Fine.
A girl has a right to decide whether or not she wishes to bring a child into this world.
I would argue that it is our right to do any action that does not infringe upon the rights of other people or hurts society as a whole. Since a fetus is clearly not a person, no rights are being infringed, and a girl has the right to act as she chooses.
But despite this, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[5] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[6] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[7]
You must follow the notes!
Are you being dishonest?
Almost every argument I've read of yours demonstrates your ignorance of informal fallacies in logic. It's too bad that the intelligence of a 7 year old can see this and you don't.
I guess if you can't counter the meat of my arguments then you will continue to resort to this ridiculous argument.
For what is now the fourth time: there are no laws that talk about ending the life a corporation. Apparently the corporation can be convicted of ending the life of an individual in federal court, but certainly not the other way around.
Revocation of certificate of incorporation of a corporation
The Office of Law Revision, Joint Committee on Legislative Services, under the auspices of John B. Harwood, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is pleased to make available all the changes to the laws of the State of Rhode Island brought about through the efforts of the General Assembly's legislative session.
7-6-56. Revocation of certificate of incorporation -- (a) The certificate of incorporation of a corporation may be revoked by the secretary of state upon the conditions prescribed in this section when it is established that:
(1) The corporation procured its articles of incorporation through fraud;
(2) The corporation has continued to exceed or abuse the authority conferred upon it by law;
(3) The corporation has failed to file its annual report within the time required by this chapter, or has failed to pay any fees, when they have become due and payable;
(4) The corporation has failed for 30 days to appoint and maintain a registered agent in this state as required by this chapter;
(5) The corporation has failed, after change of its registered office or registered agent, to file in the office of the secretary of state a statement of the change as required by this chapter;
(6) The corporation has failed to file in the office of the secretary of state any amendment to its articles of incorporation or any articles of merger within the time prescribed by this chapter; or
(7) A misrepresentation has been made of any material matter in any application, report, affidavit, or other document submitted by the corporation pursuant to this chapter.
(b) No certificate of incorporation of a corporation shall be revoked by the secretary of state unless:
(1) The secretary of state has given the corporation not less than 60-days' notice of the revocation by mail addressed to its registered office in this state; and
The secretary of state shall have given the corporation not less than sixty (60) days notice thereof by regular mail addressed to the registered office of the corporation in this state on file with the secretary of state's office; provided, however, that if a prior mailing addressed to the registered office of the corporation in this state currently on file with the secretary of state's office has been returned to the secretary of state as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service for any reason, or if the revocation notice is returned as undeliverable to the secretary of state's office by the United States Postal Service for any reason, the secretary of state shall give notice as follows:
(i) to the corporation at its principal office of record as shown in its most recent annual report, and no further notice shall be required; or
(ii) in the case of a domestic corporation which has not yet filed an annual report, then to any one of the incorporators listed on the articles of incorporation, and no further notice shall be required; and
(2) The corporation fails prior to revocation to file the annual report or pay the fees, or file the required statement of change of registered agent or registered office, or file the articles of amendment or articles of merger, or correct the misrepresentation.
You might want to research the laws of your state which govern corporations.
Go ahead and play the semantics card by the way.
The meat of your argument is merely subjective opinion, in respect to the timeline of rights of a fetus. I am not interested in debating that which is incapable of the scrutiny of fact, reason, and objectivity.
What a powerful closing ad hominem to prove your argument! It must be true because you’ve said so!
You have yet to point to a law that shows that corporations have the rights to vote, marry, hold public office, sit on juries, or exercise any of the other specific rights I mentioned -- so you have STILL failed to provide proof that corporations have the "exact same rights" as human beings, per your original claim. No one is disputing that corporate entities have SOME rights. In fact, no one is even disputing that corporate entities have fairly extensive rights, including a good many of the same rights that human beings have. But it is your burden to prove your claim that they have all the "same" rights as human beings.
So, still waiting for you to support your argument with proof that ACTUALLY supports your argument.
And are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that revoking a licence of incorporation is "ending a life"? Maybe you should take up a crusade against the "abortions" of corporations whose licences are revoked while they are still in their start-up phases.
What is wrong with you! I set a trap in which you were caught. I find it funny that you, one whom has: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are., fell into an ambiguous statement. Shall I fall into a trap in which I have set? I do not think so!
The trap: However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.
Both you and andsoccer were entrapped thereby. The fact that such has occurred evidences arrogance coupled with ignorance. Allow me to explain.
#1 All corporations having the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl is a statement you failed to comprehend.
No little girl has the rights you have claimed. I’ve never seen a little girl marry, vote, hold public office, sit on juries or exercise any rights you cited. Therefore your ignorance of refutation is availed!
#2 All the rights of a corporation are the same rights of a citizen whose of legal age. This statement is not equivalent to the statement: All corporations and all U.S. citizens can exercise all of the same rights. Or said another way, All the rights of a corporation are also the rights of a legal citizen.
Attempting to refute an ambiguous statement is your folly, and quite frankly suggests that you are a liar or worse when you claim: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.
Now, concerning the death of a corporation I suggest you read my reply to your comrade, andsoccer.
By the way, an infantile pre-schooler cannot be expected to increase you intelligence!
Yes, I am aware that you will not recognize your arguments are invalid. In spite of the fact that you: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.
Don't you have a job, or something better to do than beat this dead horse? Your arguments are unpersuasive and no one is swayed in the least by them.
With a few very narrow exceptions, a "little girl" is also not legally competent to enter into contracts. And while a corporation can change its business headquarters more or less on a whim, if a "little girl" tries to change her HQ on a whim it's called "running away from home." The "little girl" does, however, have a right to attend public schools which a corporation does NOT have. So you're still wrong, and calling me names does nothing to add support to your points.
I noticed that you overlooked the right of the parents/s of the little girl. The authority of the parents to send their children or not send their children to school is never the right of a child!
Hypocrite, your arguments about the question of consent affirm that a little girl must seek judicial permission free from or by consent of the parents. Therefore, you imply pregnant minors must have consent from either a judge or a parent. Make up your moronic mind and stop appealing to the opinion of law.
The only question in my mind that remains concerning you is:
Are you that self-deceived, or are you that deceitful?
Rights and authority are not the same. The child has the right to attend a public school; but the parents have the authority to choose private school or home schooling for their child. So your attempt to throw out yet another of your beloved "red herrings" and thereby divert the topic at hand into some other channel did not work, and you fail YET AGAIN. Failing is like a lifestyle choice with you, innit?
At no point have I ever recanted my original opinion on parental notification of abortions performed on minors, which is that the Court got it right; parental notification requirements are okay as long as there is a judicial "out" for those who need it, and this strikes me as a proper balancing of interests.
You, on the other hand, have not made any cogent arguments about parental notification requirements, but have instead gone off on any number of unrelated tangental "points," all of which you've been subsequently shown to be incorrect about.
I tire of your inability to hold civil discourse and of the spew of your walnut-sized brain. As you seem intent on trading insults, I will end with a few for you. Attempting to hold a discussion with you is much like attempting to reason with a brain-damaged rabid chihuahua, and so I have no further interest in hearing your inane drivel. Rant on if you like; your very presence on this planet is a helluva strong argument in favor of abortion that far outweighs anything your mouth might stammer out. Now go bother someone else with your idiot ranting, so you can show more of the world what a mentally-deficient near-ape troglodyte you are. Begone!
I am wholly in agreement with Banshee's argument, but I can't fault you for lack of effort. Most people would have laughed at a challenge to prove that corporations could be "killed" by someone, but not you. No, you went so far as to take a specific law that dealt with a penalty, imposed by a state government, on a corporation for one of many misdeeds, and attempted to argue that it somehow was equivalent to someone "killing" a person. You then attempted to argue that this whole thing was relevant to a debate on abortion.
Bravo.
Since you refuse to argue anything substantive, this is going to be my last argument in this thread. If you want the last word, be my guest, but unless you can show me a trial where someone was accused of killing a corporation, I don't think you really have anything to add.
While you and Banshee are in agreement, allow me to evidence the fact that you not only disagree with what I've submitted, but you also disagree with a law prof and judge.
The Death Penalty for Corporations Comes of Age
by Russell Mokhiber, Business Ethics
November 1st, 1998
In two surprising recent cases, a law school professor and a circuit court judge seek to revoke the charters of corporate lawbreakers.
We know what the death penalty for individuals means: Commit an egregious crime, die at the hands of the state. What does it mean to talk about the ''death penalty'' for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong, and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do.
Throughout the nation's history, the states have had -- and still have -- the authority to give birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter. Activist-author Richard Grossman points out that in 1890, for example, New York's highest court revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation -- referring to the judgment explicitly as one of ''corporate death.'' It was once widely understood that the states had this power. ''New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts'' in the 1800s, Grossman wrote in the pamphlet, ''Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation,'' co-authored with Frank Adams.
For many decades now, this vital power has lain dormant in the public mind. But a small group of activists led by Grossman is hoping to resurrect it. They believe that to stem the tide of growing and unaccountable corporate power, it's not enough to rely on regulation, litigation, legislation, and law enforcement. Grossman and his Cambridge-based Project on Corporations, Law and Democracy want citizens to reclaim the power to put corporations to death.
You can play the game, A distinction without a difference, all you and banshee care to. However doing so only evidences your inabilities for critical thought, knowledge of refutation, and deductive reasoning.
By the way you thought wrong did you not! Thinking I had nothing to add again evidences profound arrogance and ignorance.
If I have pissed on your arguments bare in mind I am not pissing on you.
Your efforts are commendable, I'm just sorry for your sakes that you have exposed yourself. I look forward to our next argument.
This is a very interesting argument. My first inclination is to say that our moral culture has gone so far down the tubes that we are removing consequences of actions. Which is true, but at times, the consequences from "removing" the consequences can be just as, if not more, devastating.
Maybe that is off topic, but it's my opinion. Now, on to the question at hand.
Of course parental consent should be required for underage abortions. However, in a slight twist, this consent should be not forced by the provider, but the parents responsibility. A parent needs to be involved enough in their childs life to know what is going on. There should be significant enough trust in the parent child relationship that the child is comfortable enough talking to their parent about everything in their life.
Not being a parent myself, I understand that I don't really understand all the dynamics involved here, but I do know parents that are involved in their children's lives, including my own parents, and typically, there is enough trust in those relationships to have these types of conversations. The funny thing is, when parents are this involved in their child's life, in a healthy way, these conversations do not need to happen.
Teens can't buy cigarettes, or alcohol, or sudifed, or a lottery ticket, or....I could go on and on. But some people think it's ok for them to kill a baby inside them withough parental consent? Geez people, think! My 16 year old son had to go to the ER the other day for a bad cut, and they wouldn't let him see the doc without my consent. But it's ok for a girl to kill her baby without her parents knowing?
As long as the child is underage, parental consent should be required. The parents have a right to know what they're child is doing. Now another argument would be that some teens are mature enough to make the right decision. But remember this: were they mature enough to make the correct decision to have protected sex? In this case, obviously not. Choice comes long before the pregnancy. You made the first choice and obviously it wasn't the best one. So because of this, the second choice will not be yours...unless of course, you're a legal adult.