The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Unborn Fetuses Are Not Protected By The United States Constitution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,328 times Debate No: 26412
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Rules:

1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No profanity
4. No vulgarity

Structure:

1. Acceptance/Definitions
2. Opening Statement
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Closing Arguments/Conclusion

Definitions-

unborn- not born

birth- the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb

fetus- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.

not protected- to not maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees.

by- through the agency or instrumentality of.

The United States Constitution- the supreme law of the United States of America conveyed by a series of signed documents and legal premises followed by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
GenesisCreation

Con

I accept the debate challenge and add the following definition:

As per the source: "Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a)."

I will argue that a law "which defines a "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"" constitutionally protects the unborn fetus as per federal law.

Please see the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004". [1]

Good Luck Pro.

Over to you.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...; [1]
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
GenesisCreation

Con

GenesisCreation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

It appears GenisisCreation's account has been closed. Given that this constitutes a FF, I should just leave. But I might as well present my argument now.

My resolution:
Unborn Fetuses Are Not Protected By The United States Constitution.

Contention 1- 14th Amendment

As stated in the text of the 14th amendment:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately sections 2-5 don't apply to my case so you might as well:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

That's better.

Contention 2- Irrelevance

The argument that unborn fetuses are equally protected under the constitution becomes irrelevant when you examine the texts within:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Fetuses are not protected to the constitution because:

1. They are not born yet.

2. Thus witholding citizenship, due process, equal protection, fair jurisdiction and legal personhood.





GenesisCreation

Con

GenesisCreation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

Cool story bro.
GenesisCreation

Con

GenesisCreation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Pro

Extend my arguments.
GenesisCreation

Con

GenesisCreation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
The urge to counter vote bomb, as is the Pro's unfortunate habit (even if there has been no original vote bomb), is very strong. But I'm not that guy.
Posted by magikkell 4 years ago
magikkell
@Nur-Ab-Sal
You could have something like a not-unborn fetus. A botched abortion, meaning one where the fetus does not die before extraction probably doesn't qualify as a birth. Legally, such a fetus does not count as born live person in some places and can be "finished off" I suppose without thereby incurring the penalties associated with the killing of a born person.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Killing the fetus is pretty unrestricted in the US.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
There are fetus of human and nonhuman. All that Con has to do is to show that a human fetus is indeed a human and thus protected by the U.S. Constitution, under section 1. As I"m not a citizen of that country, nor have I set foot in it, I cannot accept this debate. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Thus, a fetus is not a citizen of the U.S. However, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Therefore, if the fetus is human, it is a person, and cannot be deprived of life. Unless, of course, not all humans are persons.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
@es527, I was emphasizing the needlessness of the adjective "unborn" attached to "fetus," because the word fetus implies being unborn.
Posted by ProwlerKnight 4 years ago
ProwlerKnight
I would play with this but it would be considered trolling lol and no problem but yeah that argument is designed to be onsided I think, the Rape one I mean.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Thanks for the support bro.
Posted by ProwlerKnight 4 years ago
ProwlerKnight
lol well I know full well you can argue a point, I read over the whole "Better to rape a baby..." you participated in, still can't believe you're not winning that.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Maybe it can be argued lol
Posted by ProwlerKnight 4 years ago
ProwlerKnight
I understand this but you're not setting up an argument you're just making a statement, leaving only you as the winner based on the fact that there's no ACTUAL subject to debate, just you quoting our amendment.

Now if the argument was "Should a fetus be protected by the constitution?" That would be understandable instead of making this completely one-side by putting your facts as the argument itself, so of course I'm not going to argue a case I can't win but I will state my personal opinion on the matter.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
emospongebob527GenesisCreationTied
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: four feet
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
emospongebob527GenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Here, I provide an absolutely useless vote, for two reasons: voting for Con does no good, as he no longer exists, and Pro has a habit of annoying people so much that sometimes it's refreshing to do something equally annoying, since it doesn't actually matter. I'd take a more serious approach if both sides had not forfeited, and if Con still existed, and if Pro were anyone by his sometimes highly amusing but mostly highly annoying self. Okay, so maybe I will give him arguments after all, since he did actually make a legitimate argument, something his opponent did not.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
emospongebob527GenesisCreationTied
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: FF.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
emospongebob527GenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.