Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
mosc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Block19
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion should be illegal

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,154 times Debate No: 117958
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (0)

 

mosc

Pro

Hedonism destroys society. When neighbors fear each other community service and partnerships die. Abortion promotes hedonism.
Block19

Con

As a person with firsthand experience, I can guarantee that pregnancy and labor are both difficult and dangerous. This is something humans have know throughout our history which is why contraceptives and methods of terminating pregnancy can traced as far back as recorded history, It is even referenced in the bible and not in a negative light. Making it illegal would endanger the lives of many women who's bodies are not capable of undergoing such a difficult ordeal, Not to mention how difficult it would be for doctors who would have to standby and allow their patients to suffer just because the law deems it so.

I am curious as to what evidence you have that proves how abortions lead to hedonistic behavior.
Debate Round No. 1
mosc

Pro

Preventing conception that's an entirely different discussion than aborting a viable baby living and growing within the Womb. C/P: "Making """it""" illegal etc". What does the word "it" refer to? Contraception or abortion? Your argument lacks clarity. Everyone agrees that the life of the mother takes precedence over the live of the child.

Aborting the baby within 30 days of conception - perfectly acceptable. Abortion its something wherein a woman chooses to kill a growing baby in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, Not within the first trimester. Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. That's the law of the land. No debate.

Therefore, The subject centers upon "Should 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions be illegal? Most emphatically yes. Why? The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Prior to this Amendment slaves existed as property not human beings. A 2nd or 3rd trimester baby must not fall into slavery: it must not exist as property.

Hedonism. Clearly this excludes rape and most probably incest. Sex outside of marriage comes under the general category of hedonism. A girl just wants to have fun and gets pregnant by accident. Under these parameters hedonism directly applies. The guy that impregnates a girl by accident, That's not hedonism?

A married couple, The woman conceives: assuming that the couple wants to build a family, This does not qualify as hedonism. This too - as plain and obvious as the sun shining in the sky.

The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, Both those currently living and those born into the future. The Constitution, The basic law of the land exists as the protector of human (citizen) rights for all American citizens since 1789.

Casual sex between young unmarried couples who have limited sexual experience but whose bodies - at the height of their fertility, Invites unwanted accidental pregnancies. Youth by definition lacks the ability to see the consequences of their actions. A young horny guy or girl just wants to have fun and get laid - this defines hedonism.
Block19

Con

"As plain and obvious as the sun shining in the sky. ", That statement sums up your argument perfectly. It's a statement that seems sensible but when you really look into it, You will realize that it is way off. Because as we all know the sun is not shining in the sky, It is in fact over 90 million miles away from our sky. I know this seems trivial but please bear with me.

According to your fourth paragraph hedonism is when a couple engages is sex outside of marriage, You also state that a girl accidentally getting pregnant is an example of hedonism. So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? How about a married couple having sex every chance they get, Even to the point where they neglect their born and unborn children's well being, According to you these people would not be considered hedonist. Your points about hedonism are horribly flawed, Mainly because you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word hedonism.
Hedonism is the belief that all people should do everything in their power to maximize pleasure as much as possible.

Now this is the most important part so I would hope EVERYONE PAYS ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PART.

According to the argument YOU proposed you believe "Abortion should be illegal" however in your previous argument you stated that not only should it be legal you even stated that in some cases it is perfectly acceptable.

You challenged me to an argument where in you were going to make a case for making abortion illegal PERIOD. You did not state any exception in the original argument nor in your opening statement. It wasn't until i accepted that you tried to change the argument and your position. I think it is only fair that you do the right thing and forfeit this debate. You clearly agree that abortion should be legal, Albeit in some cases, And thereby have undertaken the CON side of this debate which i had accepted.

I do not think you did this out of malice but i do hope you do the right thing. I look forward to seeing your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
mosc

Pro

C/P: " So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? "

A young couple living together, Or even not living together but having a sexual relationship over many years. According to the law this qualifies as a Common Law marriage. A woman who gets pregnant, If the Roe vs. Wade ruling received an Amendment from the SC which limited abortion strictly and only to the first Trimester following conception, This would resolve the abortion issue completely.

C/P: "What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? " That's the definition of hedonism.

C/P: "How about a married couple having sex every chance they get, Even to the point where they neglect their born and unborn children's well being, According to you these people would not be considered hedonist. "

A bad parent(s) the State can not legislate against. That's like saying its illegal to have genetic disorders.

C/P: "Hedonism is the belief that all people should do everything in their power to maximize pleasure as much as possible. "

This definition does not serve as a challenge to my thesis.

C/P: what i wrote: "Therefore, The subject centers upon "Should 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions be illegal? Most emphatically yes. Why? The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Prior to this Amendment slaves existed as property not human beings. A 2nd or 3rd trimester baby must not fall into slavery: it must not exist as property. "

C/P: what your response: "According to the argument YOU proposed you believe "Abortion should be illegal" however in your previous argument you stated that not only should it be legal you even stated that in some cases it is perfectly acceptable. "

Your response brings no challenge to my stated opinion which tolerates abortion within the first trimeste following conception. The Title of the debate: "Abortion should be illegal", This title my argument supports in the 2nd and 3rd trimester following conception. This seems to bother you. A zygote has no shape of a human child. During the first 3 months following conception an aborted baby resembles a sandal. Only during early in the 2nd trimester does the baby take on the shape of a human being.
Block19

Con

1. "A young couple living together, Or even not living together but having a sexual relationship over many years. According to the law this qualifies as a Common Law marriage. "
False, Common law marriage only requirements very widely between states, But most if not all require the couple to agree to be married and reside together within the state.

2. "A woman who gets pregnant, If the Roe vs. Wade ruling received an Amendment from the SC which limited abortion strictly and only to the first Trimester following conception, This would resolve the abortion issue completely".
The Supreme Court has decided that the important cut off point depends on fetal viability which occurs around the 24 week mark, Considerably later that the first trimester. So you are wrong about that as well.

3. "What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? " That's the definition of hedonism".
Wrong again, I have already given you the textbook definition of hedonism, Your own interpretation of the word is irrelevant.

4. A bad parent(s) the State can not legislate against. That's like saying its illegal to have genetic disorders.
This had nothing to do with legislation it was only pointing out the flaws with your understanding of hedonism, However you still managed to be wrong, Because there are in fact many laws against bad parenting. Poor parenting and genetic disorders are not that same thing.

5. Your opening statement bases your entire argument around your preconceived notion that abortions will lead to hedonism in society. So not only does the textbook definition challenge your thesis, It uproots it entirely.

Lastly, When you decided to challenge me to this debate you had the ability to frame the debate any way you wanted and get as specific as you wanted, But you chose not to. Then you made your opening comment and again failed to establish any argument parameters, So i, After thinking i understood what we were going to debate and what points i would have to debate against, Accepted your challenge. You decided to shift the debate topic halfway into the debate, Either as a way to protect yourself from my argument or as a way to correct your earlier mistakes. The reason doesn't matter what does matter is you have tried to change the objective of this debate. Originally it was my responsibility to show why abortions should not be illegal, And i did that. You also stated reasons as to why it shouldn't be illegal, But then you basically said "no that doesn't count, You have to argue why a specific type of abortions should be legal". That is not the proper way to debate, It is disingenuous and wrong. It would be like challenging me to a soccer game and only waiting till after i have scored on you (and you have scored on yourself) to tell me, "no those goals don't count because you didn't score the way i wanted you to". If you read the comments posted to this debate you will see that everyone else understands that you made a mistake and you should own up to it.
Debate Round No. 3
mosc

Pro

C/P: 1. "False, Common law marriage only requirements very widely between states, But most if not all require the couple to agree to be married and reside together within the state. " I validate your Amendment to what i wrote. A couple living together does imply that they live together as a couple. Duh.

C/P: 2. "The Supreme Court has decided that the important cut off point depends on fetal viability which occurs around the 24 week mark, Considerably later that the first trimester. " 4 weeks in a month. 7 days in a week. 24 x 7 = 186 days, This implies that the SC set the cut off date as the end of the 2nd trimester.

Eight years before Roe was decided, The Supreme Court heard arguments in another case that would lay the groundwork for the coming abortion rights decisions. In Griswold v. Connecticut, The Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the constitutionally protected "right to privacy, " laying the foundation for the constitutional right under which Roe would eventually find shelter. But the arguments over what constituted a "right to privacy" were far from settled.

In Griswold, The Supreme Court concluded that while there was no explicit mention of privacy in the Constitution, The privacy rights implied in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments demonstrated that the Founders intended a general right to privacy to be recognized and respected by the state. For example, The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protected the privacy of personal faith, The Fourth Amendment protected the privacy of one"s person and belongings, And so on and so forth.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973 in which the justices ruled 7-2 that abortion was a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. Justice Harry Blackmun, Writing for the majority, Declared that the right of privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and previously outlined in Griswold "is broad enough to encompass a woman"s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

While the Court recognized that a woman"s right to choose was protected by the Constitution, It also recognized the competing state interests of protecting a woman"s health and the "potentiality of human life. " The solution the Court settled on was the establishment of a legal balancing test that weighed the privacy interests of the mother against the interests of the state.

The Court based its test on the trimester framework of pregnancy. During the first trimester of pregnancy, When an abortion was considered a safer procedure than childbirth, The Court reasoned that the decision on whether to abort must be left exclusively to the mother. Therefore, Any state or federal regulation that interfered with the right to have an abortion would be presumptively unconstitutional. For the second trimester, The Court ruled that the state could regulate abortion only in order to protect the woman"s health. During the last trimester, And after the fetus was considered "viable" (could survive on its own outside the mother"s womb), State laws were permitted to restrict and prohibit abortion except when an abortion would be necessary to preserve the health of the mother.

The 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, The majority opinion of the SC ruled that the Court was re-affirming "the essential holding" of Roe that "if the right of privacy means anything, It is the right of the individual, Married or single, To be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. "

Most importantly, The plurality opinion overturned the "trimester framework" established in Roe to outline a different test that accommodated for the advancement of medical technology that made the "viability" of the fetus far different than at the time Roe was decided!

Rather than set absolutes around trimester figures, The plurality articulated an "undue burden" standard, Which mandated that courts determine whether the abortion regulations at issue placed an undue burden on the person seeking the abortion. If they did, They were presumed unconstitutional. If not, They were presumed constitutional. Where the line is drawn on what constitutes an "undue burden" remains the topic of much debate in legal and political circles today.

The trimester issue - bottom line - its a subject which remains open to debate. NOT at all like your black and white yes/no simpleton thinking seems to indicate.

Hedonism has a long history, Your limited definition does not compare to the tablets of stone which Moses brought down from Sinai! C/P: "5. Your opening statement bases your entire argument around your preconceived notion that abortions will lead to hedonism in society. So not only does the textbook definition challenge your thesis, It uproots it entirely. "

Bunk. Most abortions done by inexperienced teenagers and young adults in their 2os. This age group represents the golden age of hedonism. Young self centered people looking to enjoy their lives and experiment and rebel against the older generation.

The title of this debate: Abortion should be illegal, 4 words do not define or limit my arguments other than that as pro I favor the broad opinion that Abortion should be illegal. You want to pretend that the 4 word title limits the pro position that all Abortion should be illegal. Bunk. I argue, In point of fact, That once the cells growing in the womb take on the shape of a human baby, Hands arms, Legs, Head, Eyes etc etc etc that then and only then should abortion become illegal.
Block19

Con

You seem to have difficulty understanding what you have read as it explain how you repeatedly make the same mistakes. Your comments about common law marriage was in response to a question I posed earlier, " So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? ". You may note that nowhere in that statement does it say anything about the couple living together. Now the reason I responded to your statements about common law marriage was point out that it was wrong, And it may come as a shock to you but many adults now a days are in perfectly normal long term monogamous relationships who do not feel the need to either live together or get married. In cases such as those the state cannot classify them as married, Not even common law marriage. So for the third time, You are wrong on this mater.

Another area where you failed to grasp the point was on the issue of viability. The reason I posted that was so that you would understand that the underling legal issue was with the viability and not a time constraint in terms of trimesters which you keep referring to, This is why late term abortions in the last trimester are allowed when the fetus/baby is no longer viable. You also pointed out that abortions should be illegal when a fetus looks more anatomically human, This would also contradict the Supreme Court's decision.

Thank you for posting that brief summery of Roe Vs Wade, As it lends to my argument as to why abortions should be legal and are. You seem to have a knack for (figuratively) punching yourself in the face and continuing on as if nothing has happened.

You keep stating that the definition of hedonism is "my" definition as if it was one I came up with based on something I came up with. You are wrong, It is not my definition, It is the accepted definition used in sociology which intern is the study of the development, Structure, And functioning of human society. Just a quick tip, You probably shouldn't make up a definition based on your readings from a religious book or tablet, When you are attempting to question the legality of a United States Supreme Court Case. As you may know the U. S. Government (Congress) is not allowed to make any law (or criminalize something) based on any religious establishment. So your argument that abortions should be illegal because it would lead to "hedonism" as defined by you according to the bible, Would be promptly thrown out of court.

Since you do seem fond of using religious scripture in legal arguments you might want to read Genesis 2:7, Where it states that humans come to life when they take their first breath of air, "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and [breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, And the man became a living being]. Based on this one could say that until a baby breathes outside the womb it is not considered living, But I would rather not use religion and instead base my arguments on established law and facts.

Lastly as to the title of the debate, Those four word which you yourself chose "Abortion Should be Illegal" are very clear and straight forward, You used no ambiguity there or in your opening statement. That is why I take issue, If it were me I would have said "Abortions After the First Trimester Should be Illegal", And then in my opening statement listed all the caveats where I thought it was acceptable, Before talking about the issue with hedonism. Sure it would have meant a few more words but I think it would be well worth the effort for a clear and honest debate. So you can either admit this or press on, It does not mater anymore as it seems everyone else sees through your flawed debate tactics.
Debate Round No. 4
mosc

Pro

C/P: "You seem to have difficulty understanding what you have read as it explain how you repeatedly make the same mistakes. "

This declaration, Its just plain dishonest. You do not judge and decide this debate. Rather you participate in this debate and other -- they decide who wins or loses this debate.

C/P: "" So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? ". Yes I would.

C/P: "You may note that nowhere in that statement does it say anything about the couple living together. "

Absurd. Common law """marriage""" directly presumes that the couple live together.

C/P: "And it may come as a shock to you but many adults now a days are in perfectly normal long term monogamous relationships who do not feel the need to either live together or get married. "

This behavior seems hedonistic by the way I argue in this debate.

C/P: "In cases such as those the state cannot classify them as married, Not even common law marriage. So for the third time, You are wrong on this mater. "

You presume yourself "A G A I N" as the judge which determines right vs wrong in this debate! Hello a debate its a debate over issues and NOT a dictate made by one side over the other. Duh! Marriage as a legal institution protects a couple. Divorce and Break Ups in human relations - - pretty common. A couple who have shared a life "together" for several years, If they break up how do they divide the shared communal assets of the now defunct union? A girl friend can not go to a Court and demand paternity over children.

C/P: " This is why late term abortions in the last trimester are allowed when the fetus/baby is no longer viable. " Duh! This statement proves nothing. If the baby is dead, There exists no issue what so ever that its best to remove the dead baby from the mothers' womb rather than have it rot within her! Duh!

C/P: "You also pointed out that abortions should be illegal when a fetus looks more anatomically human"

That's correct! Finally you have said a rational statement. That's exactly my point! Law its not the Tablets of Stone which Moses brought down from Sinai. Law its a living evolving process.

C/P: "Thank you for posting that brief summery of Roe Vs Wade, As it lends to my argument as to why abortions should be legal and are. You seem to have a knack for (figuratively) punching yourself in the face and continuing on as if nothing has happened. "

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade SC ruling can not just ignore it and pretend it never happened. This ostrich head in sand stupidity, Its just plain absurd.

C/P: Hedonism - " It is the accepted definition used in sociology which intern is the study of the development, Structure, And functioning of human society. "

You keep behaving like as if ideas exist as Catholic Dogmas! Bunk.

C/P: "U. S. Government (Congress) is not allowed to make any law (or criminalize something) based on any religious establishment. "

Utter and total hogwash! The separation of church and State has come into conflict on Evolution vs Creationism, For just one obvious historical example.

C/P: "So your argument that abortions should be illegal because it would lead to "hedonism" as defined by you according to the bible, Would be promptly thrown out of court. "

That's your private opinion. Call me a prick but i just love to burst your self righteous conceited self opinionated arrogance. You do not speak for all US Judges and all US Courts.

C/P: " "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and [breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, And the man became a living being]. Based on this one could say that until a baby breathes outside the womb it is not considered living, "

Classic interpretation of your quoted verse has the traditional interpretation that God breathed the Spirit of His Name into clay, Transforming that clump of earth into a living soul. Where does the baby in the womb get the air it requires to live? From the air breathed in and out by its mother; the gases exchange by means of the placenta.

C/P: "But I would rather not use religion and instead base my arguments on established law and facts. "

Your skewed absurd notion of the 5 Books of Moses as limited to a religious idea. . . Beyond stupid. The 5 Books of Moses functioned as the working Constitution ie basic law of the Davidic Kingdom of ancient Israel. Only in the Middle Ages did the vile church pervert the T'NaCH literature as something that's strictly limited to religious faith and belief.

C/P: " If it were me I would have said "Abortions After the First Trimester Should be Illegal", And then in my opening statement listed all the caveats where I thought it was acceptable, Before talking about the issue with hedonism. "

YOU did not initiate this debate but rather agreed to join the debate that I started. Therefore you do not set the parameters of how I debate.
Block19

Con

(ME: "You seem to have difficulty understanding what you have read as it explain how you repeatedly make the same mistakes. "
Pro: This declaration, Its just plain dishonest. You do not judge and decide this debate. Rather you participate in this debate and other -- they decide who wins or loses this debate. )
As you can tell by reading my statement that you are responding to, At no point did i say anything even related to me being a judge or even mention the debate. What i said was that you seem to have a problem understanding things that you have read, A point that you have just proven based on you strange response. In future debates it would benefit you to take some time to process your opponents responses before coming up with a counter argument, I think it would help you come up with a more accurate retort.

(Me: "So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? ".
Pro: Yes I would. )
Thank you for your honest answer, It shows just radical and ridiculous your views are.

(Me: "You may note that nowhere in that statement does it say anything about the couple living together. "
Pro: Absurd. Common law """marriage""" directly presumes that the couple live together. )
Yes, Common law marriage does presume that the couple is living together, But i never said anything about that couple living together, You inferred that part. It is another clear example of you reading something, But not comprehending it.

(Me: "And it may come as a shock to you but many adults now a days are in perfectly normal long term monogamous relationships who do not feel the need to either live together or get married. "
Pro:This behavior seems hedonistic by the way I argue in this debate. )
Another clear example of how radical and ridiculous your views are.

(C/P: "In cases such as those the state cannot classify them as married, Not even common law marriage. So for the third time, You are wrong on this mater. "
Pro: You presume yourself "A G A I N" as the judge which determines right vs wrong in this debate! Hello a debate its a debate over issues and NOT a dictate made by one side over the other. Duh! Marriage as a legal institution protects a couple. Divorce and Break Ups in human relations - - pretty common. A couple who have shared a life "together" for several years, If they break up how do they divide the shared communal assets of the now defunct union? A girl friend can not go to a Court and demand paternity over children. )
I am not presuming anything, I am simply stating facts of state law. The way two non married people divide things up is handled the way a married couples divorce is handled, Legally in court or through an arbitrator. I would have thought that fact would be obvious, Just like it is obvious that in a separation, Custody of a child would go to a parent. I honestly don't know why you brought that up, But at least now you know.

(Me: " This is why late term abortions in the last trimester are allowed when the fetus/baby is no longer viable. "
Pro: Duh! This statement proves nothing. If the baby is dead, There exists no issue what so ever that its best to remove the dead baby from the mothers' womb rather than have it rot within her! Duh! )
Judging by your response it seems that you don't know the definition of viable, It does not mean that "the baby is dead" as you so put it. It means that the baby is alive at the moment but is not expected to survive long outside of the womb on its own. The baby may be kept alive with machines but the law allows a mother to terminate the pregnancy, In case you were wondering terminating the pregnancy does mean killing the baby in utero.

(Me: "You also pointed out that abortions should be illegal when a fetus looks more anatomically human"
Pro: That's correct! Finally you have said a rational statement. That's exactly my point! Law its not the Tablets of Stone which Moses brought down from Sinai. Law its a living evolving process. )
So your point is that the legality of abortions should be dictated on the appearance of the fetus and not its viability or any other more significant reasoning? Not only does that contradict your statement on the previous paragraph, It also seems reminiscent of the monstrous infanticide practices that have occurred in history where societies would kill babies who were born with deformities. So congratulations your ideals are inline with those of the Nazi's.

(Me: "Thank you for posting that brief summery of Roe Vs Wade, As it lends to my argument as to why abortions should be legal and are. You seem to have a knack for (figuratively) punching yourself in the face and continuing on as if nothing has happened. "
Pro: The 1973 Roe vs. Wade SC ruling can not just ignore it and pretend it never happened. This ostrich head in sand stupidity, Its just plain absurd. )
I am not ignoring the 1973 Roe vs. Wade SC ruling, It did happen and it ruled that abortions were legal. Last i checked that was the point i am making.

(Me: Hedonism - " It is the accepted definition used in sociology which intern is the study of the development, Structure, And functioning of human society. "
Pro: You keep behaving like as if ideas exist as Catholic Dogmas! Bunk. )
I honestly don't know how to respond to that, It isn't even a coherent sentence.

(Me: "U. S. Government (Congress) is not allowed to make any law (or criminalize something) based on any religious establishment. "
Utter and total hogwash! The separation of church and State has come into conflict on Evolution vs Creationism, For just one obvious historical example. )
Did you even bother googling the supreme court case concerning Evolution vs Creationism? I will save you the trouble, "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, Creation science must also be taught. The Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion". So my statement is not "hogwash", But rather legally 100% correct. This shows president for why your hedonism argument falls flat on its face.

(Me: "So your argument that abortions should be illegal because it would lead to "hedonism" as defined by you according to the bible, Would be promptly thrown out of court. "
That's your private opinion. Call me a prick but i just love to burst your self righteous conceited self opinionated arrogance. You do not speak for all US Judges and all US Courts. )
I will refer you and everyone else to United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578. It is not my opinion that your argument would not hold up in court, It is the ruling of seven out of the nine supreme court judges. You may think that i am a "self righteous conceited self opinionated" and "arrogant", But really I am just a person who accepted your challenge and uses law and facts to back up my points. I also do not consider you a prick, But i do think you are a tad bit temperamental when someone challenges you beliefs.

(Me: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and [breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, And the man became a living being]. Based on this one could say that until a baby breathes outside the womb it is not considered living, "
Pro: Classic interpretation of your quoted verse has the traditional interpretation that God breathed the Spirit of His Name into clay, Transforming that clump of earth into a living soul. Where does the baby in the womb get the air it requires to live? From the air breathed in and out by its mother; the gases exchange by means of the placenta. )
True the mother does transfer oxygen from her lungs to the child by way of the umbilical cord, However this does not constitute "breathing" on the baby's part. Breathing is the process of respiration, During which air is inhaled into the lungs through the mouth or nose due to muscle contraction and then exhaled due to muscle relaxation. While this seems like a frivolous point to make it just goes to show how ridiculous it is to base supreme court decisions on religious documents since there are so many differing opinions one could gather even within the same religion.

(Me: "But I would rather not use religion and instead base my arguments on established law and facts. "
Pro: Your skewed absurd notion of the 5 Books of Moses as limited to a religious idea. . . Beyond stupid. The 5 Books of Moses functioned as the working Constitution ie basic law of the Davidic Kingdom of ancient Israel. Only in the Middle Ages did the vile church pervert the T'NaCH literature as something that's strictly limited to religious faith and belief. )
No offense, But the religious text that were used as the basis for laws of a nation that hasn't existed for over 2000 years is irrelevant in a discussion about a medical procedure that is and should be legal in today's society.

(Me: "If it were me I would have said "Abortions After the First Trimester Should be Illegal", And then in my opening statement listed all the caveats where I thought it was acceptable, Before talking about the issue with hedonism. "
Pro: YOU did not initiate this debate but rather agreed to join the debate that I started. Therefore you do not set the parameters of how I debate. )
You are right i did not initiate this debate and i do not set the parameters. So lets look at the debate according to your parameters. You are arguing FOR making abortions illegal. I am arguing AGAINST making abortions illegal. I know it might be hard for you to keep track, But at this point in the debate it should be obvious to everyone including you that the supreme court, Myself, And surprisingly even YOU agree that abortions SHOULD NOT be made illegal. Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 31 through 40 records.
Posted by ABoleman 3 years ago
ABoleman
@mosc your initial argument did not clarify this. Hence con"s statements. 2nd term abortion is only at 8% and 3rd term abortion almost never happens.

First of all, Second term abortions are a more dangerous procedure and more expensive. Second term abortions typically occur when first trimester abortions are illegal or severely restricted. The majority of women don"t willingly get a second term abortion. This is a different argument than "abortion should be illegal". The vast majority of women do not get past first trimester abortion but in the future you should specify that 2nd trimester abortion should be illegal
Posted by ABoleman 3 years ago
ABoleman
@mosc your initial argument did not clarify this. Hence con"s statements. 2nd term abortion is only at 8% and 3rd term abortion almost never happens.

First of all, Second term abortions are a more dangerous procedure and more expensive. Second term abortions typically occur when first trimester abortions are illegal or severely restricted. The majority of women don"t willingly get a second term abortion. This is a different argument than "abortion should be illegal". The vast majority of women do not get past first trimester abortion but in the future you should specify that 2nd trimester abortion should be illegal
Posted by ABoleman 3 years ago
ABoleman
@mosc your initial argument did not clarify this. Hence con"s statements. 2nd term abortion is only at 8% and 3rd term abortion almost never happens.

First of all, Second term abortions are a more dangerous procedure and more expensive. Second term abortions typically occur when first trimester abortions are illegal or severely restricted. The majority of women don"t willingly get a second term abortion. This is a different argument than "abortion should be illegal". The vast majority of women do not get past first trimester abortion but in the future you should specify that 2nd trimester abortion should be illegal
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
C/P: " Almost 90% of abortions are 1st trimester. 8% are 2nd and less than 2% are third and third trimester abortions are in very severe and life saving situations. 2nd and especially 3rd term abortions almost never happen. "

If the life of the mother the continuation of a pregnancy threatens, Talmudic law permits the termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. Abortion becomes an abomination when the mother chooses to abort the baby from the 2nd trimester and thereafter simply b/c she, Or her lover, Does not want the baby.

The 2nd son of Yechuda, The 4th son of Yaacov, The son of Yitzak, Agreed to levariate marriage to the wife of his deceased elder brother, Basically the concept of levariate marriage - to raise up children in the place of ones' deceased brother who had no children. The 2nd son of Yechuda the Torah refers as a 'rusha/wicked" person. He agreed to a levariate marriage but refused to inseminate the widow of his deceased brother, Despite the contractual agreement made with her to raise children to give life to the soul of his deceased brother. Children the Torah defines as the "soul" of a man/woman married couple.

The Gemara of Sanhedrin teaches that a man can not become a Dy'yan/Judge until he has a wife and children. Raising a family changes a boy into a man.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@ABoleman

Its a real pleasure to discuss these important issues with you. The apparent contradiction between 30 days and 1st trimester, You have correctly observed. My language requires a further amendment. Ideally a woman should abort an unwanted baby within the first 30 days. B'de'evad, The Talmudic term of "practically" maybe a woman could not do the operation within the first 30 days. Therefore "practically speaking", Due to the trauma and difficulty of this extremely personal decision the Torah permits the woman up to the end of the 1st trimester of her pregnancy to terminate and abort the child.
Posted by ABoleman 3 years ago
ABoleman
@mosc, Reading this debate i"m very proud of how you have changed your argument and viewpoint slightly based on previous arguments that we"ve had. However, I would like to point out where your arguments comes across as flawed in this particular debate.

You mentioned abortion in the first 30 days and said abortion is acceptable in first trimester. I just want to note that first trimester is not 30 days but is actually 84-90 days, Depending on how you classify conception. It is still technically called abortion in the first trimester, That"s why con was arguing your position.

Your definition of common law marriage as a couple regularly having a sexual relationship over many years is unique to your culture. In my culture, And even my situation, It is perfectly normal to have a partner as such who is simply a boyfriend or even a close friend with benefits. Not at all comparable to marriage for us. You"re saying that it abortion were limited to first trimester it would absolve the issue completely but please note, Almost 90% of abortions are 1st trimester. 8% are 2nd and less than 2% are third and third trimester abortions are in very severe and life saving situations. 2nd and especially 3rd term abortions almost never happen.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Bunk. Women's rights do not exclude being responsible.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Women's rights
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
States Righs Washington Bites.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Having law enforcement regulate health care is a stupid idea.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.