The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Brainmaster
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Abortion Violates the constitution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,451 times Debate No: 17010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Pro

=Definitions=
1. Created: "to bring into existence"
2. Endowed: "to provide with something freely or naturally"
3. Life:"the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body"

Also definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -> http://www.merriam-webster.com...

=Arguments=
The preamble to the constitution states: [1] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The constitution says that "all men are created equal", not "all men are born equal" this means that at conception all people are guaranteed the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a new being is brought into existence,
Even at the earliest stages of development, a fetus has it's own unique DNA [2] so the argument that it is part of the mother, and thus her body to do as she pleases is not an argument that holds any water.

By aborting an unborn fetus we violate the right to Life, (as they are killed) Liberty, (as they are not given the chance to defend themselves) and the pursuit of happiness (as they cannot pursue anything since they are not alive.)

Thus since we alienate the unalienable rights, we violate the constitution.

Sources-
[1] http://www.ushistory.org...
[2] http://www.utilitarian.net...
Brainmaster

Con

Thanks, Pro.

__Rebuttal__

Con's argument states that abortion is always against the constitution. I will be attempting to prove that this is wrong, using this loophole in his argument.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To understand the meaning of this excerpt, one must first look at the time's condition.

"Men," according to dictionary.reference.com, is "an adult male."

Women were not allowed to hold an economy until 1839 and could not vote for almost a century afterwards. The constitution was adopted in 1787. (Source: Wikipedia)

So, this means the argument does not cover women, and possibly non-citizens (the only voters at the time were property-owning, aged over 21 white males. Meaning only a percentage of population.

So unless my opponent can refute this or come up with another amendment, his resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

The 19th amendment.
Brainmaster

Con

Sorry for the gaffe (I'll probably mess this up too)

__Rebuttal__

Without using any outside laws from the constitution, there is no law prohibiting murder. There is however the "inalienable right to life."

Of course, this only applies to men. According to the Constitution, the legal voting age and citizenship age is 18 and the age of consent is 16, meaning that a baby is not a man (adult male) by either definition. By its literal definition, the baby is not alive for over a decade and a half after its birth.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

- "all men are created equal"
- The nineteenth amendment gave women equal rights to men, so they are included in this.
- My opponent's argument is completely baseless and unwarranted.
Brainmaster

Con

Define equality. No rights to all? This might as well be endorsing communism.

There is no amendment that gives 2 year olds all rights.

Probably.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Using the Declaration of Independence as the sole basis of an argument on the Constitution is a basic failure. Con did not need to say anything to win, since Pro did not present a prima facia case.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Thank you Cirrk!
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
It seems so many people make the same mistake of confusing the Declaration and the Constitution, I did for the longest time myself.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
The Declaration of Independence is not law and is completely separate from the Constitution. This debate is fail.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
The Constitution protects the inalienable rights per the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
"Tell me, in court cases do we still hold that Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness as unalienable rights?"
No.

"was the Constitution not based on much of what was written in the declaration of independence?"
No--they're completely different.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Okay, I'll concede there.
It was a slip of the tongue.
Posted by Brian314 5 years ago
Brian314
I was never denying that the Declaration of Independence's words didn't hold in today's justice system, I was pointing out the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution are two different bills. When you quoted the Declaration of Independence, you called it a quote from the Constitution.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Tell me, in court cases do we still hold that Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness as unalienable rights?
and was the Constitution not based on much of what was written in the declaration of independence?

Thus I would contend that to that effect the Declaration is a part of the Constitution.

Yes, they are two separate bills, but they are still both looking towards an similar end; Justice.
Posted by Brian314 5 years ago
Brian314
To the best of my knowledge, they are two separate documents. The Declaration of Independence was written as a document declaring the United States' separation from Britain. The Constitution was established as the framework for the government of the United States as a nation. The Declaration was written in 1776 and the Constitution was written in 1787. And according to the full text of the Constitution as here: http://www.usconstitution.net... , the Declaration was never included in the Constitution.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
BangBang-CoconutBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Using the Declaration of Independence as the sole basis of an argument on the Constitution is a basic failure. Con did not need to say anything to win, since Pro did not present a prima facia case.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
BangBang-CoconutBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had really poor arguments, in fact didn't even touch on most of pro's points. However, pro made a mistake that is all too common by mistaking the Declaration for the Constitution but con never even contested this.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-CoconutBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Attempt by Con to semantic men, BangBang dismantled this immediately. Fatality.
Vote Placed by Brian314 5 years ago
Brian314
BangBang-CoconutBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire argument was centered around the definition of "men", which Pro countered.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
BangBang-CoconutBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because Con clearly didnt take this seriously. Arguments because Pro wins the "created" argument. Moreover, Con doesnt understand basic Constitutional law and historical interpretation.