The Instigator
mosc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
straightshooter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion sucks

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: 6/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 115995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

mosc

Pro

The current living generation does not enjoy more Constitutional rights than does the as yet unborn future American citizens.
straightshooter

Con

Does not suck. Its a woman's right. Most progressive countries realize this and from a global perspective, the 'woman's right to choose' is the overall position / direction this issue is headed.
Debate Round No. 1
mosc

Pro

Woman's right? No where in the Constitution does any amendment state that a woman has the "right" to abort her pregnancy. So what do you mean by this blatantly false declaration. Women did not receive the "right" to vote not till the 20th century!
straightshooter

Con

Yes women have rights, especially as society continues to accept and provide laws that support these positions.

That said, you are correct, the Constitution does not say its a woman's right. But, in contrast, the constitution does not say she does NOT have the right either. The clear interpretation and applicability of the Constitution during the Roe V Wade trials was a painfully grueling. Still is today.

I did not bring up the Constitution, you did. FYI, the Constitution / Bill of Rights are not the only sources of social governance we abide by.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landmark Decision Source (Roe V Wade) - On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman"s right to make her own personal medical decisions " including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.
Debate Round No. 2
mosc

Pro

The Supreme Court interprets the intent of the Constitution. Roe vs Wade. Based upon that precedent, its not illegal for a woman to have an abortion. This ruling did not address the issue of the rights of future citizens as opposed to current living citizens. Its this issue which Roe vs. Wade fails to address wherein its possible to challenge the legality of abortion, despite the Roe vs. Wade ruling.
straightshooter

Con

I suppose I may lose this debate then because I guess I do not know what we are actually debating. Are you debating if the unborn SHOULD have rights or IF they have rights? As of right now, the mothers have more rights supported by the Constitution than the unborn.

Abortion Sucks as your title states.... is simply a statement. Nothing more.

You first argument states.. "The current living generation does not enjoy more Constitutional rights than does the as yet unborn future American citizens." Well... I am digging deep here... But that statement is wrong. The current 'living' generation DOES IN FACT have more Constitutional rights than the unborn. This is proven by the current rulings and laws in place that support the mother over the unborn. Therefore, the living generations is "enjoying" more constitutional rights than the unborn.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The future of a nation - its children. Europe has no future b/c its death rate exceeds its birth rate.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
A fetus should have the same rights as the mother. Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
John_C_1812 i like how you argue the distinctions between the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Constitution of 1789. But the issue of abortion rests upon the foundation of --- do the current living generations have superior rights to the future as yet unborn generations inferior rights. No one generation makes a nation therefore the premise that a current generation has greater Constitutional rights than does future generations - utterly and totally patently absurd.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
No, a declaration of independence is stating an introduction of fact to independence. Once the state of independence is set by cause of grievance. It is up to those who hold grievance to petition a union made on United States Constitution or not.

The United States declaration of Independence is describing a grievance against England. All that aside I believe you are correct Pregnancy Abortion sucks. The problem is this debate is better left to tie and as the reason I would give you real do not identify. Constitution is a method if placing limitations on the meaning of debate or law. It does so by giving directions to how to explain a topic. This explication is by basic principle and legal precedent

Where a basic prickle of Pregnancy abortion is murder it is by admission. A second problem however is that Pregnancy abortion is an admission meaning it can be used to tell a lie of guilt. Is this admission of guilt the only way to explain in basic principle a process which may take place as a constitutional right? No, it most certainly is not. The single state of female specific amputation can by adopted by constitutional principle. This relieves the burden of admission to crime from the declaration made by woman.

There will always be an argument that allows or stops a medical process all the declaration of independence and United States Constitution are doing is placing a wall in-between the general welfare of the posterity of United States of America.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
The Declaration of Independence serves as the preamble of both the Articles of Confederation and the current Constitution.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Mosc,
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are from the introduction of fact written in the United States Declaration of Independence, this is what is described to humanly create a declaration of independence. Meaning it is subject for test by united state before constitutional separation.

Roe Vs. Wade does not need to consider a declaration of independence it did need to address the issue of patient privacy. And it did. What the judicial separation did not address is the admission created by pregnancy abortion as the cause of loss of woman"s constitutional right.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Yes i agree with straighshooter, please vote. I do not vote b/c so few people vote. Every debate which i lost had only 1 vote. My opponent voted in those cases and so I lost. LOL Thats fundamentally dishonest.
Posted by straightshooter 3 years ago
straightshooter
So it looks like you guys are debating if an unborn should have more rights (or equal) than the mother. Which is cool. I get that. And I am gonna stay out of it.

The headline (actually first argument) of this debate was more about DO the mothers 'enjoy' more Constitutional rights, (which implies 'currently') and less about SHOULD they. So, if you guys have all this late night energy, can you please take the time to vote on the topic as presented and as defended. Would be appreciated. Many Thanks.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@ missmedic
"Most anti-abortionists confidently state as "scientific fact" that human life begins at conception and therefore embryos deserve legal protection. "

YO brain dead upon delivery ... your blowing your own gas. The issue, does a woman living now enjoy greater rights than a person born into the future. straightshooter argues that the rights of the current generation prevails over the rights of the future born generations, he bases this decision upon Roe Vs. Wade. That ruling however has nothing to do with the above stated issue and therefore it invalidates his opinion.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@John_C_1812
Nicely argued. I stick to my main point. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness does not by definition give greater rights to the current living generation than to the as yet unborn future generations of US citizens. The Roe vs. Wade SC decision did not consider this and therefore patently wrong. Another case of SC error, the ruling made in the 1880s which declared that Corporations exist as People.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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