Debate Rounds (5)
The fifth amendment to the constitution says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
According to this clause, the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property should not be infringed without due process of law, last I checked, the woman is not Judge, Jury, and executioner, an abortion clinic is not a court of law, and "it's my body" isn't a legitimate violation to constitute the death penalty. Thus, abortion ought to be banned.
Fantastic argument, I take it the persons referenced would be alive. Living, breathing, cognitive? That's who it seems to have been written to protect. Without mention of the foetus its impossible to infer much and hard for you to tack it onto abortion then say 'see'.
Besides I could use the same amendment as a protection of the woman's right of access to abortion if I were being flippant.
If you are advocating a total ban on all abortion no matter what the circumstances and life to be at conception please state it as you have been unclear on the boundaries you are working by and want me to argue against.
I state that it is a woman's right to abortion. We can set parameters that are agreed but that right is fundamental.
Banning has never stopped abortion and rather than force women to term, which you would have to do to eliminate the procedure, progressive societies protect the rights of the woman first and foremost. To not do so is to tell half of the human race that they are inferior to the other half which is ridiculous.
No, these are human rights, one only has to be a human for them to apply, if you were to test a fetus's genetics, you will find that they are humans. And no, this cannot be used to say that women have the right to infanticide, it grants life, liberty, and property, never the right to infanticide.
Ad telling women that they, like every other member of soicioty, are not allowed to murder other human beings for pleasure, is not saying that they are inferior. What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children, it is harmfull toward the child to murder it.
'Murder for pleasure'. Really!
Your argument seems to be based from an emotional standpoint. You utilise terms such as murder and infanticide when referring to abortion. Whether this comes from a religious standpoint or your own moralising you have left unclear.
You state: 'What people need to understand is that it is no skin off the womens constitutional rights to be denied the 'right' to murder their children.'
First I will ask you when a collection of cells become a child. There is a large grey area you could have swung for yet I suspect from your writing, and though you haven't stated it as I requested, it is conception. If that is so then I strongly disagree.
One week after conception the potential of life is but a bunch of cells. And yet you would argue that this bunch of cells is enough to deny a woman the right to life, liberty and property as set out within your constitution and that you are fond of quoting.
Your argument of constitutional illegality is flawed and USA centric. Unless you are only concerned with infringing upon the rights of American women I would ask what your argument might be in addressing European abortion. The laws here are a little different, and less disproportionate than 'you' would wish.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Fetal rights are moral rights or legal rights of human fetuses under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973. The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse. The only international treaty specifically tackling the fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the fetal right to life. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of a fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts recognize an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus.
Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother. The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states. In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that "in certain circumstances" the fetus may enjoy "a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence". Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne. In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule.
Every nation struggles with the concept of abortion with unique conclusions. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Human Rights Watch prioritize women's reproductive rights over fetal rights period.
To protect both mother and the potential of life she carries as best we can emotion must be set aside in favour of logic and reason. I await your application of both of those.
I didn't write any of that from an emotional standpoint, I only said "murder for pleasure" to exaggerate it and draw attention to how ridiculous it is to say that it would be discrimination to not allow women to commit a abortion.
Really, I couldn't care less what the EU says, the EU also said that the place where Solomon's temple was built doesn't belong to the Jews somehow, come on- it's on The Nation of Israel! This is just another example of EU idiocy, a fetus is not part of the woman, they are two separate beings and one does not have any right to kill the other. And as a side note, I never said that life begins at conception, that's absurd, life begins 40 days after conception.
And one last thing, even if the fetus was part of the mother, it doesn't matter, if I tried to kill a part of myself, say an arm or leg, I'd get locked up.
1. You don't think its discrimination to discriminate against a woman who seeks abortion.
Denying a woman the right to self determination in this matter because of how you feel is discrimination.
2. You use hyperbolic language to elicit an emotional response therefor you argue from an emotional standpoint.
If you do not use language clearly then I must deduce your meaning. Also when you use 'murder for pleasure' to exaggerate' your point I wonder why it is you need to exaggerate.
3. You are only interested in the rights of American women.
I find it interesting that you focus specifically upon the US. Why?
4. You insert a view on Israel that has no relevance.
Please let me know the significance of Solomon's temple to the debate.
5. You brand the EU and perhaps also its people as examples of idiocy.
You dismissed the whole of the EU and its stance on abortion with distain. Perhaps too liberal for your tastes. I like it.
6. You don't claim life begins at conception.
On your third post you have finally made clear your position that life begins at 40 days. Which makes your first post of 'abortion ought to be banned' slightly confusing. If you want to set your position at the 40 day mark please specify why 40 days is your comfort zone and not say 50 days.
7. You don't consider the foetus to be part of the woman.
At the 40 day mark the foetus is considered to be in the embryonic period and is less than an inch long and still you don't think it is part of the woman. Perhaps you spoke philosophically.
A final point. I have a boil on my bum about an inch wide and I cut it off in a night of drunken surgery, did I just kill a part of myself, are you going to lock me up?
1). What? How are you discriminating? By enforcng equal protection under law and saying tht women must be treated like everone else, and for this reason, like everyone else, they should not be allowed to commit a murder?
2). I exaduraed because it made liberalism sound even more absurd.
3). Becase I live in the US and the constitution only protects citizens of te US.
4&5). It was a comparson to discredit what the EU says, showing that they are all asurd.
6). Why would I say it begins at conxceptin, if killing a single celled organism is murder we should stop washing our hands.
7). A boil doesn't have a brain and a soul.
2. If your mission here is to make liberalism even more absurd then open a debate on that subject. Injecting it into a debate on abortion smells of a derail. Curiously Harry thinks only liberals are in favour of abortion rights.
3. Fair enough, though why try to force the constitution to perform in ways it was never intended, it may have been more productive to discuss abortion in less general terms.
4 & 5. As a comparison to discredit the EUs stance on abortion it did nothing. It came across as childish and puerile.
6. Is not an answer. You stated in your first post that all abortion should be banned and then moved the goalposts to 40 days. Avoiding my question of why you are now comfortable at 40 days.
7. A boil doesn't have a brain or a soul. Newsflash Harry neither doe's a fetus.
In summing up, this debate has been unsatisfactory. Harry's blustering did little to enlighten me to his position, which I found evasive and lacking any depth. His continued use of emotive language speaks volumes but ultimately has nothing to say. If Harry told me that he had tapped out his replies, spelling mistakes and all, while taking a dump I could understand the haste with which he seems to have posted his rebuttals.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.