Call out on C_Clayton_Jones

[JoeB131]

Neither of you are the ones being challenged to the debate, so stow it.

And the odds that the individual challenged will accept are so negligible as to be non-existent.

I'd happily debate Chuz Life on abortion any time...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Abortion is already a Constitutional right. What is the debate about?

Oh? Please show the article or amendment that mentions abortion?


In fact, legalized abortion is a law unconstitutionally created by a rogue court in direct defiance of the Constitution, which vests all legislative power in the congress.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'd happily debate Chuz Life on abortion any time...

I'll enjoy seeing him mop the floor with you.

 

[saveliberty]

Science continues to recognize that life starts far earlier than thought in the era of Wade v. Roe. Certainly you are not suggesting murder is acceptable.

One more time... because you are dense.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.

She'll take a pill, she'll find a guy on Craig's List that will "handle that for her", she'll drive to a state that will keep it legal.

Yep,and when someone kills someone they go to prison.

 

[saveliberty]

By the way, are you c clayton jones Joe? Because that retard is suppose to be here debating.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep,and when someone kills someone they go to prison.

Okay, when was the last time that a woman went to prison over having an abortion?

Guess what, even before Roe v. Wade made it legal, it almost never happened. The doctors who performed them were rarely arrested (usually only when they messed up and injured the woman) and were never charged with murder.

The thing you anti-choice nutters don't get is that abortion laws pre-1973 were kind of like prostitution laws are now. They're on the books, nearly everyone ignores them, no one really enforced them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yep,and when someone kills someone they go to prison.

Okay, when was the last time that a woman went to prison over having an abortion?

Guess what, even before Roe v. Wade made it legal, it almost never happened.

Is your argument against what "SHOULD or should not be" always going to an argument based on what "IS" or "was?"

 

[saveliberty]

Okay, when was the last time that a woman went to prison over having an abortion?

Guess what, even before Roe v. Wade made it legal, it almost never happened. The doctors who performed them were rarely arrested (usually only when they messed up and injured the woman) and were never charged with murder.

The thing you anti-choice nutters don't get is that abortion laws pre-1973 were kind of like prostitution laws are now. They're on the books, nearly everyone ignores them, no one really enforced them.

Your post admits it did happen. You have a nothing burger there.

 

[JoeB131]

Is your argument against what "SHOULD or should not be" always going to an argument based on what "IS" or "was?"

No, my argument is based on what will happen.

If you muttonheads ever got a ban on abortion, at some point, you'd have to enforce it... that would mean prosecuting a woman for having one.

No jury would convict...ever.

Doctors will just go back to performing them and writing down something else on the chart. That's what they were doing 45 years ago, and what they'll go back to doing.

Passing a law with no meaningful way to enforce it is worse than having no law at all. This is why I compare it to the unworkable prostitution laws. Doesn't stop people from selling their bodies, but it makes it a lot more dangerous for all involved.

 

[Chuz Life]

Passing a law with no meaningful way to enforce it is worse than having no law at all. This is why I compare it to the unworkable prostitution laws. Doesn't stop people from selling their bodies, but it makes it a lot more dangerous for all involved.

If anything ever deserves to be dangerous, the Killing of children should be near the top of that list.

Shouldn't it?

 

[JoeB131]

If anything ever deserves to be dangerous, the Killing of children should be near the top of that list.

Shouldn't it?

Fetuses aren't children.

and as long as they are in a woman's body, it's her choice, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

 

[JoeB131]

Your post admits it did happen. You have a nothing burger there.

Um, you are a bit confused. Women never went to jail for having them... which is why such a law would be meaningless.

 

[Chuz Life]

If anything ever deserves to be dangerous, the Killing of children should be near the top of that list.

Shouldn't it?

Fetuses aren't children.

and as long as they are in a woman's body, it's her choice, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

Bwahahahah!

How about you get back to me when you succed in getting the definitions in Webster's Dictionaries and the legal definitions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws changed to reflect your denials?

You would still be wrong but at least then I might have an interest in using your ignorance to educate others.

 

[JoeB131]

Bwahahahah!

How about you get back to me when you succed in getting the definitions in Webster's Dictionaries and the legal definitions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws changed to reflect your denials?

You would still be wrong but at least then I might have an interest in using your ignorance to educate others.

When was the last time a woman was convicted of killing her own fetus as murder?

Fetuses aren't people... no matter how much you religious nutters want them to be.

 

[Chuz Life]

Bwahahahah!

How about you get back to me when you succed in getting the definitions in Webster's Dictionaries and the legal definitions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws changed to reflect your denials?

You would still be wrong but at least then I might have an interest in using your ignorance to educate others.

When was the last time a woman was convicted of killing her own fetus as murder?

Fetuses aren't people... no matter how much you religious nutters want them to be.

1. I'm not religious

2. Your attempts to argue what should or should not be from a what is or what "has been in the past" is not going to fly with me. Neither will it fly with an objective SCOTUS.

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm calling you out for a debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc.


Bull Ring - Abortion Debate; Chuz Life vs. C_Clayton_Jones #post-21638740

Format specifics:

Whoever mentions anything remotely related to religion, immediately concedes he cannot reasonably defend his position, and thereby the debate.

Whoever mentions "baby" or related terms immediately concedes he cannot debate honestly, and thus concedes the debate.

Whoever cannot take a the perspective of a woman experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, and whatever this entails for her life, and cannot argue her case properly, concedes he is not mentally equipped to participate in the debate, and thus concedes it.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm calling you out for a debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc.


Bull Ring - Abortion Debate; Chuz Life vs. C_Clayton_Jones #post-21638740

Format specifics:

Whoever mentions anything remotely related to religion, immediately concedes he cannot reasonably defend his position, and thereby the debate.

Whoever mentions "baby" or related terms immediately concedes he cannot debate honestly, and thus concedes the debate.

Whoever cannot take a the perspective of a woman experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, and whatever this entails for her life, and cannot argue her case properly, concedes he is not mentally equipped to participate in the debate, and thus concedes it.

Ummmm.

How is a term of endearment like the word "baby" somehow inappropriate for a debate about children in the womb and a debate about what their rights are or at least "should be?"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Is Clayton an actual human being?
I thought it was just a bot that repeated the same statement thousands of times over.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is Clayton an actual human being?
I thought it was just a bot that repeated the same statement thousands of times over.

I'm trying to find that out, myself.

 

[JoeB131]

1. I'm not religious

2. Your attempts to argue what should or should not be from a what is or what "has been in the past" is not going to fly with me. Neither will it fly with an objective SCOTUS.

SCOTUS won't overturn Roe. If they did, they would be admitting that they aren't really making constitutional rulings, just political ones.

It not just Roe, it's 45 years of rulings supporting Roe.

But you religious nutters and misogynists keep trying.