Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#4344
Abortion should be legal
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
coolguy1234
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Description
Abortion should be legal. Pro argues that abortion should be legal, while con argues abortion should be illegal. We are arguing specifically about whether abortion should be legal or not, not about whether abortion is murder, immoral, or anything like that. Just the legality of abortion.
DEFENITIONS:
Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Oxford Languages)
Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. (Oxford Languages)
Fetus: An offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)
Round 1
[1] Introduction
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Even though we do not agree on abortion, and possibly many other controversial issues, I hope to talk in a way that is respectful, and open-minded.
[#], [number], is marking the source, which is at the bottom of the argument.
[2] Abortion as healthcare
Abortion is healthcare as stated by WHO, The World Health Organization
The WHO states that, when carried out properly through one of the recommended methods, abortion is a safe health care intervention. Abortion is a common experience and a central component of sexual and reproductive health care, occurring in every country and every community. [1]
Healthcare is an undeniable right to all humans, regardless of race, skin color, sex, heritage etc. If abortion is criminalized, it puts women's health at jeopardy, this also makes healthcare worse for others who are seeking healthcare, which destroys the quality of life in the country.
[3] Constitutional rights to an abortion
The Constitution of the United States also guarantees a right to an abortion in the right to privacy in the fourteenth amendment
The right not to have one's personal matters disclosed or publicized; the right to be left alone.
The Constitution of the United States also guarantees this in the fifth amendment,
no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
When the government criminalizes abortion, it is depriving someone of their liberty, which is unconstitutional.
[4] Bodily Autonomy
Another thing, women should have control over their own bodies, this is also a position taken by the UNFPA as stated by them,
Bodily autonomy is the foundation for gender equality, and above all, it’s a fundamental right.[2]
Organ donating, is basically the same thing as choosing to do an abortion or not, if you really think about it. You choose to save someone life. Same thing with abortion. If organ donating is legal, then abortion should also be legal. A woman's body is her property, and she can choose what she wants to do with it.
The extremely high number of abortions indicates that criminalization has little or no effect on a woman’s decision to have one. Likewise, if what we’re seeking is to protect the fetus, criminalization has never been effective in this regard. Protection can be achieved through public policy that is also consistent with women’s rights, such as comprehensive health services that include pre-abortion counseling.[3]
[5] The effects of criminalizing abortion
Criminalizing abortion only leads to further damaging women's health by forcing women to, without consent, seek necessary medical treatment. Legalizing abortion avoids all of these problems.
Criminalization of abortions does not decrease abortions, instead it increases abortions.
Abortion also increases crime, and clandestine markets.
In countries with restrictive laws that limit access to abortion, the market moves multi-million dollar figures for clandestine abortions, both through surgical abortions and the sale of misoprostol and mifepristone pills. In other words, the criminalization of abortion validates a clandestine market without regulation that profits at the cost of women’s lives, health and autonomy. [4]
[6] Human rights
You, and everyone else in this world, has the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives. Their life goals, their marriage, their career etc. These include being able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. And to make that decision, abortion need to be legal. Therefore, restricting abortion restricts human rights. Also, if a woman gets into a pregnancy that she did not consent to and is forced to give birth, that is torture. Pregnancy and childbirth are extremely painful, and forced childbirth is torture, not allowing abortion in this case is another violation of human rights.
In summary, abortion is a human right, and should be granted to all women.
[7] Sources
1. Greetings
Thank you for argument. I also hope to have a respectful debate while maintaining an attitude of learning. As a result of my desire to have a fair debate, I will use this round only for making my argument so we can both use rounds two and three for rebuttals. This, I believe, will make the grounds more fair, especially since I will have the final argument.
2. Opening Statement
You set the reasoning of the debate when you said that this debate is about legality, not morality. I must open by saying that I think that this is very difficult as I believe that laws should be based on morality, sometimes even regardless of outcome. Although the current outcome of the law may not yield immediate positive results, the spirit of the law can eventually instill itself into society, creating not only obedience but even a desire to obey. However, I will try my best to avoid the question of morality by sticking wholly to legality.
3. The Value of Life
The laws of the United states are clearly based on the concept that life has value. This can be seen in the Declaration of Independence:
"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" (1)
This value of life is put into law in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person" shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" (2)
In attempting to interpret the the meaning of the laws, we must know the reasoning behind the laws, and can then use that reasoning to understand what the laws allow. So, why does life have value? To answer this question, we must examine the beliefs of the authors of our law.
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson (3)"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors. " George Washington (4)"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams (5)"The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible." Benjamin Rush (6)
The list goes on and on (7). The authors of our laws clearly held to the Biblical values of life which would naturally cause us to turn to the Bible in order to understand the reasoning behind our laws.
" For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Psalm 139:13-14 KJV (8)
It is therefore logical to conclude that the law was written with the idea that human life has value given by God and that therefore such value applies even when a human being is in the womb. If science was the basis for the reasoning behind the value of life given in the law, then a scientific approach would be warranted. However, every reason that the authors of the law gave for there beliefs arose out of their religion, not science.
There are two distinctly different way of interpreting the law: originalism and living constitutionalism. Obviously, I have taken an originalistic approach, but not because I am necessarily an originalist, but because the rules that you set for this debate demand that I take such an approach. Living Constitutionalism interprets the law from the belief that society and science changes and, therefore, the meaning of the law should change with it. Therefore, in order to take the Living Constitutionalism approach, we must examine morality, society, and science; we cannot do this while obeying the rules that have been set for this debate--that we must constrict ourselves entirely to legality.
4. Rights
Placing aside the fact that the rights given in the Constitution apply, through the foundation of the Constitution, to humans in the womb, we must also explore the rights of the mother. Bodily Autonomy follows from the right of liberty given in the Fifth Amendment given above. However, does this right of Bodily Autonomy override the autonomy of the body? If a person wants to be thin, they adopt a fit lifestyle; if someone wants to wear earrings, they go and get a piercing; if someone wants to be healed or remain sick, they go to the doctor or not. If someone wants to be pregnant, then they have sexual intercourse; if they don't want to become pregnant, they sustain from intercourse or use birth control.
The right of bodily autonomy is based on the anatomy or natural truths of the body; the rights we have over our body comes from what we do to our bodies, not our body's responses. In other words, a woman's choice is in her decision to have sex, not to become pregnant. No woman can choose to become pregnant, they can only choose to have sex, and hope that it results in a pregnancy.
If a woman's right to liberty regarding sex is violated, the pregnancy is a result of that violation, not the cause of it. As unfortunate as it is, this only adds to the seriousness of rape. Given the fact that a woman's fundamental choice is in the right to choose sex, making abortion illegal is does not violate this right.
5. Equality
A common claim is that a woman is treated unfairly due to the illegalization of abortion because it takes aways her control over her body; men, on the other hand, have an "unfair" advantage because they don't have to deal with pregnancy. Many agree that while both share a right in choosing to have sex, woman must deal with the unfair aftermath. However, men are also forever affected by rape. Part of a man's right to decide whether to have sex is in his right to choose who to impregnate, or who will be the mother of his children. When men are raped, they are forced to impregnate women who will then, under the pretense of "equal rights", have the final say as to the outcome of the pregnancy of his offspring. Is this really fair? Once again, in both genders, the right to the decision of sex is what protects against an unwanted pregnancy.
6. Who Has Ever "Given Consent" to a Pregnancy
I've heard it said that, no one has the right to be in someone's womb, but I strongly disagree--everyone has that right. Look around you, every living person was in their mother's womb before she even knew about it. No one has ever or can ever "give consent" to become pregnant. Therefore, if women must give consent, wouldn't every pregnancy be a violation of rights? If we truly want to separate pregnancy from sex, then pregnancy is a result of natural occurrence. So, if we are created with the unalienable right to liberty, then doesn't it follow that the nature of our anatomy itself violates our rights? How is that a logically legal claim?
7. Closing
In closing, after reviewing the laws of our nation and the rights granted by those laws, it follows that the unborn are humans with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that abortion does not take away from the created rights of a woman. In fact, abortion creates an area of control which women have that men don't, namely, a woman can terminate her offspring while a man cannot. It therefore follows that legally speaking, abortion is not only not a right of women, but should be illegal.
Sources
Round 2
I don't know whether to make this argument for rebuttals or my arguments. So I decided to do them both.
[1] Rebuttals
The authors of our laws clearly held to the Biblical values of life which would naturally cause us to turn to the Bible in order to understand the reasoning behind our laws.
The Bible is not consistent, there have been many passages stating that abortion is okay, and abortion is not okay.
Here as some pro-choice lines in the Bible:
"Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
Here are some pro-life lines in the Bible:
“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).
The Bible is not reliable, and therefore should not be used to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Also, the reason why a scientific approach was not warranted was because science was not relied on at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
This can be seen in the Declaration of Independence:
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and therefore cannot be used to determine law in the US.
"No person" shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
I would like to look at the words "without due process of law;". At minimum, due process of law means that before the government deprives someone of life, liberty, or property, they must give an advance notice[1]. Now of course, fetuses cannot be given an advance notice, and therefore this passage does not apply to them. However, when the government bans abortion, an advance notice is needed, since banning abortion deprives a woman of property, and liberty.
So, if we are created with the unalienable right to liberty, then doesn't it follow that the nature of our anatomy itself violates our rights? How is that a logically legal claim?
No, we are not created with an unalienable right to liberty, nor are we created with any of the rights to liberty, life, or property. (By created, I mean life starting at conception) We are only guaranteed these rights once we are out of our mothers womb.
[2] Arguments
[2a] Abortion bans impact on income inequality and the economy
Abortion bans increase poverty, and income inequality
NPR reporter Scott Horsley cited a 2018 study of “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States,” based on interviews with 813 women over five years. It shows that women who were not able to get abortions and later gave birth had higher odds of poverty six months later than women who received abortions. They were also less likely to have full-time work and more likely get some form of public assistance. Both effects “remained significant for 4 years.” The study concluded that “Laws that restrict access to abortion may result in worsened economic outcomes for women,” an outcome the women expected, since the most common reasons women give for wanting to end their pregnancies are financial, “in particular, not having enough money to raise a child or support another child.”[2]
If governments ban abortion, lower class women will have a harder time getting by, and get poorer, while the rich just keep getting richer.
Abortion bans also result in a loss of money, which happened in Texas
The IWPR found that the economic loss of abortion restrictions to women and the state economy is $14.5 billion annually in Texas.
Not only does abortion decrease the standard of living in many places, but it also makes the economy worse.
[2b] Anyone who's raped has not given consent to sex or pregnancy
A woman who was raped did not consent to have sex, and therefore did not consent to have a baby. Not allowing an abortion in this case is a violation of human rights.
[3] Sources
Sources:
Hello again, I'm sorry for the long response, I've been extremely busy and haven't had much free time. Anyways, it's rebuttal time.
1.
Here as some pro-choice lines in the Bible
How is Matthew 24:19 pro-choice? In context, this verse is talking about the "latter days" when world becomes evil. This particular verse is merely saying that it will be a bad time for women to be pregnant due to the evil; it has nothing to do with abortion and most certainly has nothing to do with it being a right of every woman. As a matter of fact, the passage in which this verse it found is really saying "woe" to everyone. Read it and you'll see
Here are some pro-life lines in the Bible:
Since you clearly admit that there are pro-life verses in the Bible, then you admit that the Bible is pro-life unless other verses prove otherwise. Please provide better examples of pro-choice verses if you can find any.
The Bible is not reliable, and therefore should not be used to decide whether abortion should be legal or not.
That is not the issue here; since this debate is about legality and not morality, then it is about the interpretation of the law. Since it is not about morality, then we are confined to using the moral code used by the authors of the law rather than replacing it with a new moral code. My point was, since the Forefathers used the Bible as the basis for the rights listed in the Constitution, then to interpret the law, it is best to look to the Bible. Unless you can find an actually pro-abortion verse in the Bible, then the Bible is pro-life, and since it was the basis for morality held by the Forefathers, then it should be the basis for our interpretation of the law.
2.
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and therefore cannot be used to determine law in the US.
Once again, while the Declaration of Independence holds no legal authority, it is another clear indication of the values held by the very men who wrote the Constitution. Several of the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence also authored and/or singed the Constitution. Once again, the Declaration of Independence is useful for properly interpreting the Constitution. As multiple law professors wrote:
"The principles espoused by the document should informsubstantive constitutional interpretation in matters of pressing legalconcern, such as voting and marriage equality."1
3.
I would like to look at the words "without due process of law;". At minimum, due process of law means that before the government deprives someone of life, liberty, or property, they must give an advance notice[1]. Now of course, fetuses cannot be given an advance notice, and therefore this passage does not apply to them. However, when the government bans abortion, an advance notice is needed, since banning abortion deprives a woman of property, and liberty.
First, doesn't the fact that a fetus cannot be given advanced notice prove that that there is no due process of law that gives the government the right to take the fetus's life?
Second, all laws deprive us of "liberty". Just as not being able to murder deprives us of the liberty to murder. The real question is, does it violate her rights.
4.
No, we are not created with an unalienable right to liberty, nor are we created with any of the rights to liberty, life, or property
So, you are bluntly disagreeing with the authors of the law that you yourself used earlier to prove your point? This seems rather contradictory.
Let me make my point regarding bodily autonomy more clear. It does not matter if we are created with said rights or not, the fact is that it is not logical to believe that people have rights that the very nature of their bodies violate. Once a woman has sex, conception and the development of the fetus is the naturally course of her body, over which she has no control. The idea that a woman needs to "give consent" to becoming pregnant is ridiculous because to give consent indicates that it could make a difference. Women have literally no control of whether they become pregnant outside of some things like birth control. Who are they giving consent to? The fetus? But the fetus does not exist until after conception when it is to late. Once again, a woman's right is to choose to have sex, not to override the very nature of her body by terminating a pregnancy.
I maintain that a fetus is protected by the rights listed in the Constitution and that no woman's rights are violated by banning abortion.
5.
A woman who was raped did not consent to have sex, and therefore did not consent to have a baby. Not allowing an abortion in this case is a violation of human rights.
No, the rape was a violation of human rights. I repeat, to believe that a woman must consent to have a baby is not logical as whether conception occurs is up to the natural course of her body alone. The primary control a woman has is in her choice to have sex, and that control is her right. If that right is violated, then it has already been violated by the one who raped her.
6.
Abortion bans increase poverty, and income inequality
Your proof that this is true says that "woman who could not get abortions" have higher odds of poverty. However, earlier you said:
Criminalization of abortions does not decrease abortions, instead it increases abortions.
This seems contradictory. If abortion bans increase abortion, then this evidence would conclude that an abortion ban would actually decrease chances of poverty.
However, increased poverty and crime and all that are issues that can be dealt with separately. We cannot justify mass genocide with the fact that it would probably improve society or the economic state of our nation.
7.
You, and everyone else in this world, has the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives.
Only to an extent. I cannot choose to not drink water for more than about 40 days nor can I choose to not eat for about more than three. The commonly spreading idea that our souls can be entirely opposed to our bodies is dangerous. Our bodies define us as much as we define our bodies. That is why my bodily autonomy does not override the anatomy of my body.
8.
Abortion is healthcare as stated by WHO, The World Health Organization
I must disagree with the WHO; first, they blatantly ignore addressing the rights of the fetus. Second, what is the basis for health? Isn't the natural state of the body the true basis for health? Think about it, the purpose of healthcare is to return the body to its natural state, not to disrupt it's natural functions on the whims of the patient.
Sources
Round 3
[1] Rebuttals
I'll give a better example of the Bible supporting abortion.
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . Exodus 21:22–23
That is not the issue here; since this debate is about legality and not morality
You said in an earlier argument that we must examine morality,
Therefore, in order to take the Living Constitutionalism approach, we must examine morality, society, and science; we cannot do this while obeying the rules that have been set for this debate--that we must constrict ourselves entirely to legality.
I've decided to examine morality.
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams (5)"The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible." Benjamin Rush (6)
John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Rush did not write the or help write the constitution. As for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, they did not intend religion to be the basis of law. If religion is based on law, then our country is a theocracy, and our country is NOT a theocracy.
First, doesn't the fact that a fetus cannot be given advanced notice prove that that there is no due process of law that gives the government the right to take the fetus's life?
No it does not. You can't, it's impossible. Logically speaking, It has to be possible in order it to be a violation.
It does not matter if we are created with said rights or not
So that means, a fetus can be aborted because it doesn't matter if we aren't created with said rights.
Your proof that this is true says that "woman who could not get abortions" have higher odds of poverty. However, earlier you said:
I said abortion bans increase poverty and inequality, not women who can't get abortions.
We cannot justify mass genocide with the fact that it would probably improve society or the economic state of our nation.
Abortion and mass genocide are two totally different things. One results in the death of one, the other results in the death of many. Also, abortion saves people from having terrible lives. Kids who are supposed to be aborted but are not often have terrible lives, abortion prevents people from having not great lives. [1] Genocide prevents people from having good lives, and is committed by terrible people, abortion is often done by people who are trying to prevent them, and their child, from having horrific lives.
since it was the basis for morality held by the Forefathers, then it should be the basis for our interpretation of the law.
So, if the Bible says that people the government should sponsor Christianity, we should do it because the Bible says we should even though it is a violation of the First Amendment?
Second, all laws deprive us of "liberty"
We're given an advance notice when laws do this. Not in the case of abortion though.
I must disagree with the WHO
So, you're disagreeing with health experts who have a lot of knowledge on the subject of healthcare, and abortion?
Only to an extent. I cannot choose to not drink water for more than about 40 days nor can I choose to not eat for about more than three.
Yes, you can choose to do it. However, whether you do it or not is an entirely different thing.
to believe that a woman must consent to have a baby
I said the woman didn't consent to have sex not a baby. Also, I never argued that women must consent to have children.
The idea that a woman needs to "give consent" to becoming pregnant is ridiculous
I did not argue that a woman needs to give consent to becoming pregnant. Also, a woman can (she can give consent, but does she need to? No.) give consent to being pregnant, like planned pregnancies. However, accidental pregnancies are different, it can be the result of one-night stands and other things.
If abortion bans increase abortion, then this evidence would conclude that an abortion ban would actually decrease chances of poverty.
No, it does not conclude that abortion bans decrease poverty.[2] That was my mistake.
The Bible is not reliable, and therefore should not be used to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. That is not the issue here; since this debate is about legality and not morality
Didn't you just say that the Bible should be used to interpret the Constitution? That seems contradictory. Also, that whole paragraph is a just a huge contradiction.
My point was, since the Forefathers used the Bible as the basis for the rights listed in the Constitution, then to interpret the law, it is best to look to the Bible. Unless you can find an actually pro-abortion verse in the Bible, then the Bible is pro-life, and since it was the basis for morality held by the Forefathers, then it should be the basis for our interpretation of the law.
You literally just said we shouldn't, and in the same paragraph you said we should? How does that make any sort of sense?
[2] Closing
Overall, Con's arguments are full of contradictions, and after looking at the Constitution, I have seen that it grants women the right to have an abortion. Not allowing it is an unconstitutional act, and a violation of human rights.
[3] Sources
Hello again! Last argument, always a bummer; it's been fun! Let's see what you had to say!
1.
I'll give a better example of the Bible supporting abortion.
And how does Ex. 21:22-23 support the purposefully taking the life of the child. In the case given in this verse, there is no intent in taking the fetus's life and it seems to be describing an accident, although that is debatable. Nevertheless, despite that, the offender is still punished; therefore, this verse is more pro-life that pro-abortion. If that's the best verse there is for your argument, then it isn't very strong.
2.
You said in an earlier argument that we must examine morality,
No, I said that in order to take the Living-Constitution approach, we must examine morality. I then explained that, for this reason, I was not taking that approach.
I've decided to examine morality.
The reason I'm not trying to debate over morality is because you stated in the rules of this debate that:
We are arguing specifically about whether abortion should be legal or not, not about whether abortion is murder, immoral, or anything like that. Just the legality of abortion.
So, I'm only trying to stick to the rules that you set.
3.
As for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, they did not intend religion to be the basis of law. If religion is based on law, then our country is a theocracy, and our country is NOT a theocracy.
How do you know that they did not intend for religion to be the basis of law? The law is nothing more than a list of dos and don'ts, it does not justify itself, but it must be justified. Viewing history, including the letters they wrote, the speeches they gave, and the books they read, it becomes clear that religion was a vital part of everything they did. However, they realized that the law must not explicitly contain religion as that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. However, though religion does not specifically appear in the law, when you study history, it seems the logical conclusion that it was the justification for the law.
No, a theocracy is when the church (the institution of religion) holds some or all authority in the government. A good understanding of our government will quickly let us see that the church does not control our government, though religion does effect the voting of our congressmen. There is a big difference between the church controlling the government and a congressmen using his worldview to decide what is right and wrong as he votes.
4.
No it does not. You can't, it's impossible. Logically speaking, It has to be possible in order it to be a violation.
You're saying that it has to be possible to give the fetus an advanced notice in order for not doing so to be a violation? I'm not saying that it is a violation for the government to not give the fetus advanced notice, I'm saying that since the government can't give advanced notice, then there is no way for them to justify taking the Fetus's life. If advanced notice is required to take life, then if it can't be given, the life can't be taken; it's that simple.
5.
So that means, a fetus can be aborted because it doesn't matter if we aren't created with said rights.
You are seriously cherry-picking my statements in order to make it look like I'm saying something that I clearly am not. I said the statement to which you referred in a very specific context to address your very specific challenge.
6.
I said abortion bans increase poverty and inequality, not women who can't get abortions.
You didn't say it, the the portion of your evidence that you decided to show did.
"It shows that women who were not able to get abortions and later gave birth had higher odds of poverty six months later than women who received abortions."
No, it does not conclude that abortion bans decrease poverty.
Not the study, only the two contradictory claim that you made--one that women who can't get abortions have a higher risk of poverty (as stated in your quote) and two, your statement that abortion bans actually increase the rate of abortion. Therefore, any negative impact that comes with decreased abortions can't apply if a ban doesn't decrease abortions and if there are such impacts from an abortion ban, then it dis-proves your point that abortion bans don't decrease abortions.
7.
Abortion and mass genocide are two totally different things. One results in the death of one, the other results in the death of many.
Allowing abortions have resulted in millions of deaths, so, while one abortion only results in one death, allowing abortions will result in mass genocide.
Also, abortion saves people from having terrible lives. Kids who are supposed to be aborted but are not often have terrible lives
So do you believe that we should kill people who are having terrible lives? Also, we can address the quality of their lives as a separate issue. And, yes, perhaps "often" they do, but not always.
8.
So, if the Bible says that people the government should sponsor Christianity, we should do it because the Bible says we should even though it is a violation of the First Amendment?
I didn't say that the Bible is the law, only the justification for it, and I didn't say that we should obey it, only that it is the best way to understand the principles of the Constitution.
9.
We're given an advance notice when laws do this. Not in the case of abortion though.
Woman are given advanced notice that they cannot get an abortion when they are pregnant just like the law gives advanced notice to all others.
Yes, you can choose to do it. However, whether you do it or not is an entirely different thing.
No, I can't choose to not eat for more than about 40 days because after that I would be dead, and therefore can choose no more; it is an example that bodily autonomy cannot override the anatomy of the body.
10.
I did not argue that a woman needs to give consent to becoming pregnant. Also, a woman can (she can give consent, but does she need to? No.) give consent to being pregnant, like planned pregnancies. However, accidental pregnancies are different, it can be the result of one-night stands and other things.
So, you're saying that if the difference between the consensually becoming pregnant and not consensually becoming pregnant is only in the purpose behind why she consented to having sex. It sounds like a bad decision made without being willing to bear the possible, natural consequences. How can we say that that is a violation of her rights?
Also, If you are saying that women doesn't have to give consent to becoming pregnant, then how does a woman becoming pregnant without her consent justify anything?
11.
Didn't you just say that the Bible should be used to interpret the Constitution? That seems contradictory. Also, that whole paragraph is a just a huge contradiction.
That statement "The Bible is not reliable, and therefore should not be used to decide whether abortion should be legal or not" was what you said, not me. Don't accuse me of saying something that I didn't.
Also, the Bible should be used to interpret the Constitution because it is logical to conclude that it was the basis for the Constitution.
"Also, that whole paragraph is a just a huge contradiction." and "You literally just said we shouldn't, and in the same paragraph you said we should? How does that make any sort of sense?"
The point I was making was that we are not DEBATING about morality (according to your rules). I'm examining morality to interpret the law, not to DEBATE about it. So, all I was saying was that we can't debate about the moral code that should be used morality, but we must examine the moral code used in the writing of the law in order to properly interpret and apply the law.
Closing
In closing, I conclude that women have the right to choose to have sex, and thereby have control over pregnancy. If that right is violated, OR used frivolously, then her rights were already taken or thrown away. Her reproductive rights must be protected at all costs; however, she does not have the right to end the pregnancy once these rights are violated.
It also is logical to conclude that the fetus is included in the protection of the law as the rights listed in multiple, important historical documents would most likely have been considered to apply to a fetus at the writing of the law. This conclusion comes from the clear dependence on God by the founding fathers in their justification for the founding of this nation.
"To assume the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."1 Declaration of Independence
Sources
"Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life."
I'm afraid that's incorrect. The Constitution doesn't state that depriving someone of life is unconstitutional; it only asserts that loss of life, limb, or liberty without due process is unconstitutional. Additionally, this applies solely to US citizens, and since citizenship begins at birth, unborn children do not meet this criterion.
Additionally, despite the scientific evidence that a fetus is alive, the US Constitution neither mentions nor prohibits abortion. States determine the legality of abortion, and even in states where it is illegal, women who have unlawful abortions are not charged with murder. While you are entitled to view abortion as a murderous act, current federal and state laws do not align with this perspective.
"The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed."
The Declaration of Independence is unrelated to the civil rights listed in the US Constitution because the former was written in 1776, primarily for the purpose of announcing and justifying the separation of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. In contrast, the US Constitution was drafted in 1789 to replace the Articles of Confederation, which failed to maintain a stable government for more than a decade. Consequently, nothing written in the Declaration of Independence serves as a basis for the US Constitution and vice versa. It is essential to understand this distinction before making claims about civil rights.
"The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification."
This statement is entirely incorrect, as the Constitution explicitly states otherwise. "The Congress shall have the Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/ Take time to review your understanding of the US Constitution before making bold claims, such as it not mentioning any justifications for the laws it contains.
" That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing."
In reality, you are making baseless statements about a constitution that, according to your own testimony, is not based on the Constitution itself but on unrelated sources. This is why you make false claims, such as the laws in the Constitution not justifying themselves, which I have debunked using the Necessary and Proper Clause found in the US Constitution itself.
"So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution? You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from the belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?"
My evidence is that the Constitution's language clearly states that religion is not a basis for making state decisions, such as laws. You have not provided any evidence from the Constitution itself to support your argument. Additionally, you have admitted that the Constitution does not mention religion as a justification for its foundations, yet you continue to argue based on irrelevant sources that contradict the Constitution's wording. I never claimed that the Constitution's framework lacked any moral projections from the Founding Fathers. I simply stated that they did not incorporate religious beliefs, as they were firmly against the idea of combining state and religion, whether through an institution like a church or otherwise.
The more appropriate question is why you attempt to make claims about the Constitution and its principles using unrelated sources. Logic dictates that if one argues a legal document has religious justifications, they should extensively research the Constitution and provide quotes from the document to support their position. However, you have not done this and instead rely on external sources, claiming that the Constitution does not justify its own foundation, which is inaccurate.
In reality, you are merely cherry-picking sources that are not from the Constitution to gain credibility, as the Constitution either does not support your beliefs or specifically goes against them. The separation of religion and state is made clear in the First Amendment regardless if you acknowledge this fact or not.
"However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights."
The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed.
The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification. That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing. So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution. You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?
"or the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment."
And where exactly is "flag burning" in the Constitution?
It's not in there. The reason that the Constitution was applicable to the subject of flag burning was because someone took a logical approach to make that connection between flag burning and freedom of speech. All that I am doing is making a connection between the killing of a fetus and the law protecting the rights of a "person" found in the 5th amendment.
"As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution."
As I previously mentioned, the law does not justify itself. You may study the law all you want, but in order to understand its justification or understand the principles behind it, you must look to outside the written law.
" Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim."
Once again, it separates CHURCH and state. The first amendment has nothing to do with the justification or principle behind the law, only the law itself. It states that a law cannot be made "respecting an establishment of religion (a church or some would say an official, forceful establishing of national religion)", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This law clearly has nothing to do with the justification behind the law. As I already stated, religion (or its views) was not specifically stated in the law, but that does not mean that it wasn't the justification for it.
So no, when you read the first amendment, it is clear that it is not violated by religion being the foundation for the law.
Abortion is murder. Also, abortion is literally depriving someone of life, so your argument that the US would be unconstitutional because it is depriving someone of a liberty, abortion is depriving someone of a life.
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof."
The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." For the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or the 10 Amendments covering American civil liberties, so there is no constitutional analysis on the subject. Additionally, federal law supersedes state law, meaning if the Constitution supported or prohibited abortion, states could not make their own rulings. However, abortion remains a state-level issue rather than a federal one.
"I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution."
As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution. However, if that is the sole basis for your understanding, you entirely miss the essence of the Constitution's purpose and its true directives. Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim.
"Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator"
The Declaration of Independence does mention our inalienable rights granted by a creator. However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights. Therefore, American law is not based on any religious foundation, as the founding fathers established a secular government rather than a theocratic one.
"That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment."
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof.
"No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews."
And what serves the basis for what one votes for? If congressmen completely det aside their worldview, it would destroy representation because people who hold certain worldviews will not be represented. After all, what is the point of representation if all of the congressmen are coming from exactly the same perspective.
"As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals."
Once again, this is not so much a question of law, but rather the interpretation and application of the law. The proper method of interpretation has been a debate in America for many years.
" Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion."
Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator.
"What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective"
Logic is merely deduction, and I most certainly hope that it was used regardless of whether the approach was from a moral or historical perspective. As for education, the education of the Forefathers was clearly religious. The reason it is called a worldview is because it is a way of viewing the world. When someone truly holds the perspective of religion, it shapes their view of all aspects of their worldview, from history and biology to politics and ethics.
I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution.
Lastly, what is your evidence that the Founding Fathers set aside their moral beliefs when writing the law? My quotes are a small look into the reality of the Founding Fathers worldview. Read their letters and their speeches; this worldview becomes clear. Some of these quotes even outline the Founding Fathers themselves stating that religion and civil matters are inseparable; that is more than hearsay, it is historical evidence to everything that I've said. So, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
". Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.""
No, it is not. Church is the institution of religion, state, as used in this phrase, is the institution of the government. It is vital to keep these two institutions separate. History provides many examples of when the institution of government took control of the institution of church or when the institution of church took control of the institution of government. There is a clear difference between the church controlling congress and an elected congressman making decisions based on his worldview of right and wrong.
Again, you are using quotes that, although they may have been said by the founding fathers, amount to nothing more than hearsay. Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion.
"The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation"
No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews.
" After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible."
What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective. Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.
"There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors."
That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment.
Overall, your argument is flawed due to a contradictory understanding of the First Amendment's separation of church and state, as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the separation of powers between the Federal government and the States outlined in the Tenth Amendment. Additionally, your argument relies on irrelevant and inapplicable statements from the founding fathers, which you mistakenly equate to law.
As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals.
To show my point:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can exist apart from religious principle."
George Washington
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
John Adams
First, thank you for your input; I would like to comment on several of your points for the purpose of justifying my position.
" Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims."
Separation of church and state is not the separation of religion and state. Church is merely the institution of religion, not the belief itself. The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation. After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible.
" they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights."
There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors.
Pro could win this blindfolded, with the right mindset of course.
This is an engaging debate; however, it seems both Pro and Con have misconceptions regarding the law and civil rights. Pro argues that abortion is a human right based on the principle of freedom of choice, asserting that denying women the option to decide whether to continue their pregnancy constitutes torture. Consequently, they believe abortion is a civil right and should be legalized. The issue with this argument is that human rights are not universal and must originate from existing laws for the claim of a right to be valid. Since abortion is not federally legalized, it cannot be considered a human right. Therefore, claiming that denying its legalization violates human rights is incorrect.
Additionally, the starting point of Pro's argument is the claim that healthcare is an undeniable human right for all individuals. However, this assertion is false, as no amendment in the Bill of Rights states or implies this to be true.
Lastly, for the pro, the 14th Amendment does not grant women the right to an abortion. It primarily concerns the right to claim citizenship for those born in the United States or within its jurisdiction. All individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are considered citizens of both the United States and their respective states. No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws. The quote you provided about the 14th Amendment is inaccurate and therefore invalid.
The Con's misinterpretation stems from their reliance on the Bible. Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims.
Additionally, although the opposition argues that "after reviewing the laws of our nation and the rights granted by those laws, it follows that the unborn are humans with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that abortion does not take away from the created rights of a woman," they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights. If this were true, abortion would have been considered murder long ago, and the federal government would have banned the practice. The debate regarding the constitutional protection of unborn children under the law remains highly contested, with no definitive ruling to date. Consequently, it is advisable for the opposition to rely on existing legal documentation rather than interpreting quotes from the founding fathers when arguing for the rights of unborn children.
So far, the Con side has presented a more convincing argument in this debate. Although referencing God, the founding fathers, and the rights of unborn children may have flaws, the Con effectively advocates for equality and a woman's right to choose whether to engage in intercourse. As a result, making abortion illegal would not infringe on their rights in this aspect. On the other hand, the Pro side's counterargument appears to be that the Bible is unreliable and that unborn children are denied their rights before they even have them, despite the law stating otherwise. While I agree with their initial argument, the overall rebuttal fails as unborn children are not legally recognized as citizens until after birth.
I recommend that both Pro and Con thoroughly study the laws before engaging in this debate. Nevertheless, the debate itself is of high quality!
Does CON argue it should be illegal in all cases or just most?