frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





Should abortion be abolished?

12346»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • “No. In certain cases, it is necessary such as in medical cases.”

    Why would you think in any medical case a woman told to make self-incrimination is necessary.

    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87 said:

    “No. In certain cases, it is necessary such as in medical cases.”

    Why would you think in any medical case a woman told to make self-incrimination is necessary.


    Classic Strawman @John_C_87
    Plaffelvohfen



  • No it's not strawman argument. A pregnancy abortion in every way descries a murder that is why it is justified instantly. It is a direct question to why any medical treatment needs to have a self-incrimination attached to crime. It is more than likely just an application to impose the right not to self-incriminate as some pregnancy abortion take place without the donors of egg and sperm. 

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. Its a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 
    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87 said:
    No it's not strawman argument. A pregnancy abortion in every way descries a murder that is why it is justified instantly. It is a direct question to why any medical treatment needs to have a self-incrimination attached to crime. It is more than likely just an application to impose the right not to self-incriminate as some pregnancy abortion take place without the donors of egg and sperm. 

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. Its a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 

    So you would let a Mother die a brutal death at the operation table when abortion is the only way to save the mother? And you would also let a potential baby to be born with excruciating pain before it dies anyway?

    @John_C_87 ; with regard to the abortion case it's not all black or white. Your thinking is dichotomous; blatantly fallacious.



  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Does a man get any input their children?   Like Dave Chappelle says in his new special, if a women has a right to kill the bay, I should at least have the right to leave it.

    The man doesn't get to decide whether his child is born or not.  If it is he must pay child support.  In divorce cases or separation, it is nearly impossible for the man to gain a higher level of custody than the female. Just curious if you think that is unfair at all?
    Your qualm is with the manner of legal precedents in applying child support, not abortion. If men were not financially required to support the child, what argument would you have here? Don't worry, I got this one for ya. NONE!!! It's not the men who have to carry the child 9 months.    
  • John_C_87 said:
    No it's not strawman argument. A pregnancy abortion in every way descries a murder that is why it is justified instantly. It is a direct question to why any medical treatment needs to have a self-incrimination attached to crime. It is more than likely just an application to impose the right not to self-incriminate as some pregnancy abortion take place without the donors of egg and sperm. 

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. Its a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 

    So you would let a Mother die a brutal death at the operation table when abortion is the only way to save the mother? And you would also let a potential baby to be born with excruciating pain before it dies anyway?

    @John_C_87 ; with regard to the abortion case it's not all black or white. Your thinking is dichotomous; blatantly fallacious.

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. It’s a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 

    Okay, first off, I cannot make a choice to approve a described murder. Basic argument of debate may be a woman has stopped an immigration into a nation she is staying. Row versus Wade has placed a gap on anyone straddled with the burden of defending United State Constitution in a position to hold a woman’s right to medical Hippocratic oath.

    Second a woman has a female specific amputation as a united state as the effort is to create a presumption of innocence all woman can share equally. The legal failure of pregnancy abortion is that woman had not created a circumstance before legislation that sets all woman as equal in a national obligation to United State Constitution.


    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87 said:
    John_C_87 said:
    No it's not strawman argument. A pregnancy abortion in every way descries a murder that is why it is justified instantly. It is a direct question to why any medical treatment needs to have a self-incrimination attached to crime. It is more than likely just an application to impose the right not to self-incriminate as some pregnancy abortion take place without the donors of egg and sperm. 

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. Its a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 

    So you would let a Mother die a brutal death at the operation table when abortion is the only way to save the mother? And you would also let a potential baby to be born with excruciating pain before it dies anyway?

    @John_C_87 ; with regard to the abortion case it's not all black or white. Your thinking is dichotomous; blatantly fallacious.

    Medically all egg produced by a woman are alive, it is with treatment the life is preserved and matures. It’s a classic malpractice of law having a group self-incriminate in that way. 

    Okay, first off, I cannot make a choice to approve a described murder. Basic argument of debate may be a woman has stopped an immigration into a nation she is staying. Row versus Wade has placed a gap on anyone straddled with the burden of defending United State Constitution in a position to hold a woman’s right to medical Hippocratic oath.

    Second a woman has a female specific amputation as a united state as the effort is to create a presumption of innocence all woman can share equally. The legal failure of pregnancy abortion is that woman had not created a circumstance before legislation that sets all woman as equal in a national obligation to United State Constitution.


    Framing abortion as murder is an old and outdated fallacious argument. No one has said or implied that it should be approved to murder a baby.

    PlaffelvohfenDee



  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @piloteer. So i guess what your saying is that every woman who is for abortion, also must be against child support laws.  But i never hear them arguing for that.

    Also not to mention you still didnt answer how it is right that a man has no say in whether his offspring lives or dies, other than the woman has to carry it.

  • "Framing abortion as murder is an old and outdated fallacious argument. No one has said or implied that it should be approved to murder a baby."

    I'm not framing abortion as murder; I call abortion by a form of medical treatment connected to any pregnancy a lie.  The basic expectation is to learn that pregnancy abortion is not murder at some point after a basic statement of officially stopping human life takes place. Abortion as the official stop of birth by medical treatment is what is to takes place the medical treatment insures the official stop of birth not pregnancy.

    Roe Vs. Wade constitutionally said we need a frame work where officerly ending life in a state of union with human pregnancy is not said to take place openly. Also then saying, woman have a basic constitutional obligation to create woman equal with woman by the state of their union between law and pregnancy. This has not taken place to offer common defense to a general welfare, so now a new test is applied in the form of female specific amputation as common defense to a general welfare of all woman.

    Yes, someone in fact does repeatedly say murder a baby in a very complicated way. You are now trying to teach that murder was not said instead of simply not saying it. The state of the union created by abortion's abolishment is around immigration across a international boarder. A woman stops this immigration in order to preserve an equality between all woman as united state.

    If there is a fallacy here please describe it because there has been a great deal of sacrifice that has gone into the search to find the required understanding to build this state of the union between all woman.
  • John_C_87 said:
    "Framing abortion as murder is an old and outdated fallacious argument. No one has said or implied that it should be approved to murder a baby."

    I'm not framing abortion as murder; I call abortion by a form of medical treatment connected to any pregnancy a lie.  The basic expectation is to learn that pregnancy abortion is not murder at some point after a basic statement of officially stopping human life takes place. Abortion as the official stop of birth by medical treatment is what is to takes place the medical treatment insures the official stop of birth not pregnancy.

    Roe Vs. Wade constitutionally said we need a frame work where officerly ending life in a state of union with human pregnancy is not said to take place openly. Also then saying, woman have a basic constitutional obligation to create woman equal with woman by the state of their union between law and pregnancy. This has not taken place to offer common defense to a general welfare, so now a new test is applied in the form of female specific amputation as common defense to a general welfare of all woman.

    Yes, someone in fact does repeatedly say murder a baby in a very complicated way. You are now trying to teach that murder was not said instead of simply not saying it. The state of the union created by abortion's abolishment is around immigration across a international boarder. A woman stops this immigration in order to preserve an equality between all woman as united state.

    If there is a fallacy here please describe it because there has been a great deal of sacrifice that has gone into the search to find the required understanding to build this state of the union between all woman.

    @John_C_87 would you mind elucidating what you're saying please?



  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    You really are an optimist if you hope to have a coherent answer from John... I wonder what will be the next non-existent words he'll use though... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @piloteer. So i guess what your saying is that every woman who is for abortion, also must be against child support laws.  But i never hear them arguing for that.

    Also not to mention you still didnt answer how it is right that a man has no say in whether his offspring lives or dies, other than the woman has to carry it.

    Obviously any woman who has an abortion cannot receive any child support for that child. You seem to have trouble understanding that child support laws has no bearing on abortion whatsoever though. Exactly what is it that makes you think a man should have an equal say, or any say at all on a woman's decision on her body?  
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @piloteer. I think a man should have a say in whether his offspring lives or dies.  The offspring is a separate entity.

    What im refering to with the child support laws is it seems women that support abortion what to gove men the short end of the straw at every turn.

    "I should be the sole decider of whether your offspring lives or dies.  If i decide to have it you 100% owe me child support."
  • @ZeusAres42 ;
    I can try....nice word by the way. Elucidate.

    My claim is abortion is a lie due to fact it describes murder.

    1. Abortion when connected to pregnancy is a basic description of murder that relies on a person learning at some point when life starts so they then have a defense so the question of murder is no longer valid argument. 

    The common phrase used by woman as a united state is pregnancy abortion the interpretation of this is birth abortion. As not all woman who agree to allow pregnancy abortion stop pregnancies they officially knowingly stop birth as well. Roe Vs Wade gives me instruction all woman must be created equal on a united state constitutional level as it is located in a position of unconstitutional.
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;
    I wonder what will be the next non-existent words he'll use .

    Birth Abortion.


  • Instruction on the soonest lethal force or deadly force can be used is not a position that creates all woman as equal in the concerns of pregnancy and the many outcomes that can be the final result.


  • BrandyKnightBrandyKnight 62 Pts   -  
      It is only a matter of time before the regurgitated arguments become completely useless. Due to medical advancements, state laws defining the "unborn" and the simple history of people becoming more enlightened as decades progress, we will continue to see changes when it comes to abortion as a whole. 

     When the Constitution itself was written, men were dominant over women. Women had very few rights and certainly were not considered equals at all. People argue that the purpose of the unborn being left out of Constitutional protection because the rights of the woman were considered is laughable. When they wrote that all men are created equal, they meant men. Not women and not children so the unborn would be even less so. Also, very little was known about stages of development at all. Most people thought a baby to be a baby when it started moving around. A woman's body was her husband's as were her belongings and anything in her body. She would have had to ask her husband or her father if she could terminate a pregnancy. 
     Thankfully, as decades progressed ,it was determined, by much hard work, that women should be considered equal. We should be able to vote, and make our own decisions. So the Supreme Court recognized that "all men are created equal" includes women.  

     Fast forward to Roe v. Wade. Due to medical advancements and increased knowledge, the Supreme Court specified that women could have abortions but not after viability, which to them was around 24 weeks. After that, it was up to state laws and medical professionals, not the woman as to whether the abortion would occur or not. They also added a collapse clause just in case, at any point in the future, a decision was made to add the "unborn" as protected individuals, separate from their mothers, the Roe V Wade decision would collapse. 

      I say all of this because we are constantly advancing medically. Viability is earlier.  38 states have added definitions of "the unborn" recognizing their rights not to be murdered or assaulted. Just as women earned protection over the years because we are consistently advancing general human rights, the only next logical advancement would be that the unborn, across the country, regardless of situation, are lives also worth Constitutional protection. 

      I really think that, regardless of our beliefs, wants and opinions, if we review historical patterns, we already know where we are headed.
    John_C_87
  • Okay first Constitution itself is different from United State Constitution. A United State Constitution is speaking of law history and future in basic principle making it easy to understand. For everyone even oppressed woman by prejudice.

    All men are created equal by their creator, in the case of American men, the creator was President of the United States of America, as a man sat by vote men for the future of all men as testimony before this United States between basic principle and legal history.

    All woman are created equal by their creator. They will never be equal to men and it is not a basic principle to set as realistic goal. The supreme court failed to realize that all men are created equal by their creator, not all men are created equal. The reason for the misunderstanding is Civil liberty taken between a United state set on the basic end of Constitution.

    The basic issue of Roe Vs Wade is that the court documented that it was written law that violated medical privacy in how it was created. Quite simply said all woman had not been created equal by the law how written in Texas. So, now decades later it is not medical advancements which make the biggest push it is if woman can still all be created equal as united state with pregnancy. As marriage has been failed by both men and woman.  Any protection woman have received was in a relationship to prejudice which yes was present throughout history.

    Is it now self-evident that all woman are created equal by their creator? The basic principle that united them as a group?

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It is scientifically a human life.  Look a pregnancy chart and tell me when it becomes a person.  You can say birth, but that makes absolutely 0 logical sense.  I don't agree that "personhood" should be subjectively defined on an individual basis.
    Fine. Scientifically, a fetus is a human life. But it is not a valid human being. Does a fetus have agency? No. Do they have rights? No. Are they considered valid human beings? No.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • There are so many cases where it is ok. I stand by, "women's body, women' choice." No man should be able to tell us what to do with our bodies.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • There are so many cases where it is ok. I stand by, "women's body, women' choice." No man should be able to tell us what to do with our bodies.

    “There are so many cases where it is okay.”

    Not according to Roe Vs Wade, abortion creates a basic loss of privacy when written in law. That makes it reasonable to believe it is a loss of privacy when spoken as well. Attention! Attention! MayceeDonald and all woman there is a male telling you stop using your body to fabricate a prejudice between all woman. Defined a united state between all woman and create them equal by their creator or not. Anything else we can work on a man can't do?  I got one be Prasedera. No man can be Prasedera of the United states of America.


  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It is scientifically a human life.  Look a pregnancy chart and tell me when it becomes a person.  You can say birth, but that makes absolutely 0 logical sense.  I don't agree that "personhood" should be subjectively defined on an individual basis.
    Fine. Scientifically, a fetus is a human life. But it is not a valid human being. Does a fetus have agency? No. Do they have rights? No. Are they considered valid human beings? No.
    If that's your stance then there's nothing wrong with slipping an abortion pill into your girlfriend's food or drink without her knowledge.  The Baby (According to you) isn't a valid human being, has no agency and no rights...therefor terminating it has no repercussions regardless of who does it or who's choice it is.  I suppose in the case of physical harm on behalf of the Female in question we could establish a wrongdoing but so long as there's no reason to believe that the pill caused harm to the Woman...then what's to stop Men from terminating their potential son or daughter despite the wishes of the Mother?  The Baby doesn't have the right to reside within the Mother, that much is clear from your argument and since it can't be Murder to kill an unborn child...I suppose Men have the option to choose as well.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    What I am saying when making myself clear.

    1. If I tell a woman, I am going to abort her baby I am saying I am going to kill the baby.

    2. If a Doctor tells a woman, a medical professional is going to perform her abortion. The doctor is say the medical professional is going to kill the baby. 

    3. If a woman tells a woman, she is going to allow someone to perform an abortion on her. She is saying she is going to have the baby murdered.

    If someone in this chain of command states instead of abortion something else the loss of privacy does not have to be lost. 
    Female specific amputation is what? Abortion or not? Amputation of what? What is female specific?
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk
    If that's your stance then there's nothing wrong with slipping an abortion pill into your girlfriend's food or drink without her knowledge.

    On the contrary, it's still her choice to make, what you propose goes against bodily autonomy and is as wrong as your stance for the same reasons...

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Ok, I'll bite.  If the Woman has complete control over her body and excising the fetus is not an argument for the body of the fetus but an argument for the body of the woman...then how is this wrong?

    Edit: More simply put, if it's just a clump of cells...how is this wrong?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    The problem is with the "without her knowledge" part... Bodily autonomy also means no one has the right to prevent a women from giving birth against her will...

    Whatever a women decides to do when she learns she's pregnant, to abort or to give birth, whatever her choice is, the actual moral thing to do is to let her exercise that choice... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Alright, then let's just stick with "Bodily autonomy" and we'll operate on the idea that the status of the fetus has nothing to do with the matter.  So then under this logic we can safely eliminate fetal homicide from the criminal books and we'd effectively reduce my example down to a low grade felony which would be reduced to a misdemeanor in most cases as there wouldn't be any lasting effect on the person's body who was given Plan B unknowingly.  Sound about right?

    Edit: Except in cases of minor on minor where the minor (Female) doesn't quite have the legal right to bodily autonomy in regards to preventing her from giving birth when she wants to as minors do not necessarily have that choice. 

    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    The legality regarding age is irrelevant, bodily autonomy is a human right, not a civil right... But sure, I do think fetal homicide laws shouldn't exist, but I would consider the fact of giving an abortion pill to someone without her knowledge an aggravated assault, up to 14 years...
    John_C_87
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Aggravated assault is an intentional attempt to cause serious bodily harm with disregard for human life, no matter what State you're from.  So, please tell...how is slipping your pregnant girlfriend an abortion pill considered aggravated assault?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @ Vaulk

    Female Body autonomy is not relevant a woman has no control over the creation of life other than nutrition. What is created first by woman the fertile egg or the unfertile egg? Then woman creates both fertile and unfertile egg. 

    The invasion of privacy has not been addressed all women are to be created equal by their creator grievance as a united state, life's beginning.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    And again John, I have no idea what you're saying.  I haven't been able to understand you since you joined and while all of your words are in English...they don't quite form complete rational sentences.  Are you using a translator?
    Plaffelvohfen
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • Abortion in the United States Supreme Court was an invasion of privacy not murder. The Unconstitutional status has nothing to do with life and its origin. Any better?
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    You misunderstood... Aggravated assault also occurs when a person attempts to cause bodily injury with a weapon, the pill would be that weapon, as poison is... And laws are amendable to include this in a new legal definition, after all fetal homicide laws didn't even exist before 2004... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree, all my research results are within the "Serious injury" category and must include a weapon.  Plan B isn't a poison by any definition and can be taken safely by just about anyone with the exception of those who are allergic to it.  It almost sounds as if we're leaning towards aggravated assault because of the effect on the fetus...because I can't justify saying that "Plan B constitutes serious bodily harm with a weapon" on anyone.  

    What we're likely looking at here is a simple assault but then again even simple assault requires serious bodily injury and again...you'd be hard pressed in the matter of considering the Mother only as having serious bodily harm inflicted upon her.  Misdemeanor.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Vaulk

    Meh, fine with me really...

    Edit: I mean, if you don't want to amend definition, it's on you, I thought you would be sympathetic to the cause... Either way I'm fine with it...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    So we'd have Men simply choose.  Suffer a Misdemeanor, or suffer 18 years of child support and forced financial obligation equating to an average of $233,000.00.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    Vaulk said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    So we'd have Men simply choose.  Suffer a Misdemeanor, or suffer 18 years of child support and forced financial obligation equating to an average of $233,000.00.
    Why "Men"? Men as in Society or as in male? Not sure I follow...

    18 years of child support? Make no sense to phrase it that way, there is no child to support...

    $ 233k, I could picture a judge in a civil court granting more, according to the financial capacity of the guilty party... As a floor limit then? I'm fine with it... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    “No. In certain cases, it is necessary such as in medical cases.”

    Why would you think in any medical case a woman told to make self-incrimination is necessary.

    When the pregnancy completion would kill the mother.
  • @Vaulk

    You misunderstood... Aggravated assault also occurs when a person attempts to cause bodily injury with a weapon, the pill would be that weapon, as poison is... And laws are amendable to include this in a new legal definition, after all fetal homicide laws didn't even exist before 2004... 
    Murder existed before 2004 the way a lethal force is used never changes Plaffelvohfen. The three or four states of lethal force are the same, the difference there is a question of malpractice of law by way of interpretation.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Should abortion be abolished?

    My question is what was to stop abortion from being abolished in America. It is an invasion of privacy. The invasion takes place by legislation, medical, and legal parties. Female-specific-amputation is not abortion. It is prejudice between women taking place by way of legislation which was describe in a court ruling as wrong by way of exposing female privacy.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473 ;

    "When the pregnancy completion would kill the mother.:"

    Lawmaker male or female has no right to have a united state by law dictate an admission of guilt by prejudice. It is an invasion of privacy that directs the idea a woman is in control of the killing. It is a frame that traps an image of a woman to a killing.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:

    If that's your stance then there's nothing wrong with slipping an abortion pill into your girlfriend's food or drink without her knowledge.  The Baby (According to you) isn't a valid human being, has no agency and no rights...therefor terminating it has no repercussions regardless of who does it or who's choice it is.  I suppose in the case of physical harm on behalf of the Female in question we could establish a wrongdoing but so long as there's no reason to believe that the pill caused harm to the Woman...then what's to stop Men from terminating their potential son or daughter despite the wishes of the Mother?  The Baby doesn't have the right to reside within the Mother, that much is clear from your argument and since it can't be Murder to kill an unborn child...I suppose Men have the option to choose as well.
    Slipping something in a person's drink without their knowledge is a violation of their bodily autonomy, especially slipping something having such a profound effect on their body as abortion of pregnancy. That would be a serious crime in most jurisdictions, comparable to adding a small amount of rat poison to their drink.

    Now, regarding the whole child support debate, I do not think there should be such a thing: in my opinion, freedom and responsibility come together in one package, and the woman's freedom to decide whether to keep the child translates to her responsibility for the choice made. If the woman decides to give a birth and the man decides to leave her, then too bad: it is his right to walk away, and it is her responsibility to decide what to do now. If she does not want to raise the child alone or looking for a new partner, then she is free to give the child away for adoption, for which she would be compensated handsomely.
    Obviously, it is different in case a prior contract was signed by both parties, prescribing some sort of child support in case of such scenario.

    Giving a woman full freedom to decide whether to give birth to a child, yet making the man responsible for the consequences of her choices, would be very wrong indeed, and that is something I am in strong disagreement with most abortion rights advocates about.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • Still do not believe it?

    Is there a state in the union that objects to female-specific-amputation as a medical treatment?
    Is there a state of female that objects to female-specific-amputation being a medical treatment?

    What's female-specific-amputation, you want to know what that is, surprise! It's called privacy ever here of that?
    DDAN15xlJ_dolphin_473
  • DDAN15DDAN15 16 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 wait it's not an amputation because it's not the women body you see it's the child's own self, not the women
  • I do not see. I do not know. I create privacy by treating all women equal by their creator. I know only a loss for any part only a woman may lose by amputation. For it is something a man never had. Thow this part can be alive there is reason to believe the removal is life-threatening.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    You jumped in a little late on that one.  The argument I made is meant to represent my opinion AFTER operating on the conclusions of the Pro-Choice arguers.  

    Basically, a fetus has no value, it's a clump of cells, it's not a living person so what's the harm of killing it?  

    Also, equating Plan B to Rat poison is entirely inaccurate.  

    "There are no safety concerns about using progestin-only emergency contraceptive pills (like Plan B One-StepNext Choice and Levonorgestrel Tablets) more than once. Progestin-only emergency contraception is effective for preventing pregnancy after sex each time you use it. The label for ella (ulipristal acetate) states that ella should not be used more than once in the same cycle. However, a recent study showed that it is safe to take ella repeatedly, although it may not be as effective because most women eventually ovulated".

    https://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecrepeated.html

    The only reason it's a serious crime today is because of consideration of the life of the Child...which doesn't really make much sense.  The State is essentially saying "If the Mother doesn't want it...it's worthless, but if she does then it's worth enough to put you in prison for a few decades for killing it".  The State has basically relegated the value of an unborn child to be assigned by the preference of the Mother.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @Vaulk

    But the logic is wrong, because there is more at stake here than just the life of the fetus. I agree that the State position on the matter is illogical, but that does not make all pro-abortion stances illogical. My stance, for example, is based solely on the principle of bodily autonomy, so I do not see any value in the fetus - however, killing this fetus can be done in many different ways, some of which violate the person's bodily autonomy. Me deciding to kill a fetus in a woman's body against her consent violates her bodily autonomy, but her deciding to do it voluntarily does not.

    Take an extreme example: you can kill a fetus by blowing up a hydrogen bomb near it, but this obviously has serious legal implications, even in the assumption that the life of the fetus is worthless. Every action should be considered in a proper context, and we cannot just look at the fate of the fetus and ignore all other possible consequences.
    Blastcat
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    The relevance is the crime in abortion in America is the loss of privacy, not the idea of when life begins. The struggle for control of the female body comes at a price of privacy or health by dieting to affect ovulation.

    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

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

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch