Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[Derideo_Te]

Only the woman can have bear the fetus to term therefore it is her decision alone. If the man was capable of bearing the pregnancy then you might have a point. Until that is possible the decision rests entirely with the woman who has to carry the burden, quite literally.

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

 

[percysunshine]

Why is this a factor? 50% of the DNA is the Fathers. Ten years later, if there is a custody kerfuffle, the Father gets 50% visitation rights. Fair is fair.

.

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Get back to us when you are willing to gain weight for 9 months and then suckle an infant for a year and then raise a child while still trying to keep your job and get raises and promotions.

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

 

[percysunshine]

I am willing to do that.

Your turn.

.

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you speak for all males?

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

 

[percysunshine]

Don't be silly. Of course not.

.

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In which case your individual willingness is irrelevant.

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

 

[percysunshine]

So if men do not think all exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Is the reverse true? If all women do not think exactly the same, they are irrelevant?

Seems like over generalization, and a failing attempt at stereotyping.

.

.

.

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the fact that women can fall pregnant and men can't is stereotyping now?

If that is all you have then you have de facto conceded your position.
-

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

 

[percysunshine]

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

.
50% of the DNA is the fathers DNA. He has half of the responsibility. I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not specifically address the subject of DNA..

.

 

[Boss]

The subject is what people are willing to do, not what they are biologically able to do.

Give that another try.

.

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

A woman can't become pregnant alone. Until someone invents synthetic semen, that will always be a natural fact.

Does a woman who is mother of a two year old, have the right to starve her child to death in the closet? Do we have the right to impose our views on her or force her to care for the child? If so, you just defeated your own argument.

We have the right to dictate what happens in her closet because it involves another human being. Now, we can get cute with semantics and create some new word to define children in closets as something non-human, and then jump back on our high horse to defend the mother's right to kill it. We can even pass a law to say that's okay and the SCOTUS can rule that it falls under right to privacy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

.
50% of the DNA is the fathers DNA. He has half of the responsibility. I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not specifically address the subject of DNA..

.

You are correct that the Constitution does not address the subject of DNA. However the Founding Fathers were well aware that women became pregnant because men donated their sperm and yet they still saw fit not to grant men the right to control what happens inside a woman's uterus.

Why don't you take a stab at coming up with your own "DNA Amendment" to the Constitution?

How exactly are you going to obtain the 67% support you are going to need to get it ratified?

What wording will you use to convince women to support your cause?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assumes facts not in evidence in the OP.

.

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

A woman can't become pregnant alone. Until someone invents synthetic semen, that will always be a natural fact.

Does a woman who is mother of a two year old, have the right to starve her child to death in the closet? Do we have the right to impose our views on her or force her to care for the child? If so, you just defeated your own argument.

We have the right to dictate what happens in her closet because it involves another human being. Now, we can get cute with semantics and create some new word to define children in closets as something non-human, and then jump back on our high horse to defend the mother's right to kill it. We can even pass a law to say that's okay and the SCOTUS can rule that it falls under right to privacy.

Puerile strawman!

 

[percysunshine]

But accurately reflects facts in your challenge to me in this debate.

"Get back to us when you are willing..."

So it is still your turn.

.

.

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

.
50% of the DNA is the fathers DNA. He has half of the responsibility. I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not specifically address the subject of DNA..

.

You are correct that the Constitution does not address the subject of DNA. However the Founding Fathers were well aware that women became pregnant because men donated their sperm and yet they still saw fit not to grant men the right to control what happens inside a woman's uterus.

Why don't you take a stab at coming up with your own "DNA Amendment" to the Constitution?

How exactly are you going to obtain the 67% support you are going to need to get it ratified?

What wording will you use to convince women to support your cause?

The founding fathers saw fit not to grant men the right to control what happens inside a woman's uterus?

The Constitution, as founded, is a document which limits the rights of government. It does not say anything about men vs. women.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You, plural.

Next!

I took that as 'you' singular. You were replying to my post after all. Even the general 'you' is still silly, for the same reasons. All men do not think the same, and all women do not think the same.

What is your point?

.

Onus remains on you to provide substantiation for your position. So far you haven't. Men can't get pregnant ergo they have no right to force women to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. You have no "rights" to impose your beliefs on anyone else and force them to do something that they don't want to undergo.

Change the Constitution to give yourself that right and see how far you get. The right to privacy means you can't dicate what happens inside a woman's uterus.

You need to prove that the Constitution is wrong.

.

.
50% of the DNA is the fathers DNA. He has half of the responsibility. I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not specifically address the subject of DNA..

.

You are correct that the Constitution does not address the subject of DNA. However the Founding Fathers were well aware that women became pregnant because men donated their sperm and yet they still saw fit not to grant men the right to control what happens inside a woman's uterus.

Why don't you take a stab at coming up with your own "DNA Amendment" to the Constitution?

How exactly are you going to obtain the 67% support you are going to need to get it ratified?

What wording will you use to convince women to support your cause?

The founding fathers saw fit not to grant men the right to control what happens inside a woman's uterus?

The Constitution, as founded, is a document which limits the rights of government. It does not say anything about men vs. women.

The Constitution explicitly identifies our individual rights.

You want to deny women their Constitutional rights.

Still waiting for the draft of your "DNA Amendment".

 

[Boss]

You want to deny women their Constitutional rights.

Show me where a woman has the Constitutional right to take the life of another innocent human being? The Supreme Court has bestowed this right, not the Creator of life. You want to deny people the right to live and claim that as a Constitutional right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You want to deny women their Constitutional rights.

Show me where a woman has the Constitutional right to take the life of another innocent human being? The Supreme Court has bestowed this right, not the Creator of life. You want to deny people the right to live and claim that as a Constitutional right.

The 4th Amendment grants the right to privacy. The Constitution does not recognize a 1st semester fetus as a legal person independent from the woman. RvW grants states limited rights in the 2nd semester. A woman's own health and/or life outweighs the life of the fetus in the 3rd semester.

Onus is on you to change the Constitution if you want to deprive women of their rights.

Nothing is stopping you from trying.

 

[Boss]

You want to deny women their Constitutional rights.

Show me where a woman has the Constitutional right to take the life of another innocent human being? The Supreme Court has bestowed this right, not the Creator of life. You want to deny people the right to live and claim that as a Constitutional right.

The 4th Amendment grants the right to privacy. The Constitution does not recognize a 1st semester fetus as a legal person independent from the woman. RvW grants states limited rights in the 2nd semester. A woman's own health and/or life outweighs the life of the fetus in the 3rd semester.

Onus is on you to change the Constitution if you want to deprive women of their rights.

Nothing is stopping you from trying.

No need to change the constitution because abortion is not mentioned in it. All that is required is another ruling by SCOTUS to protect the life of the unborn or modify the Roe v. Wade ruling.

The rights to privacy do not trump the right to life. If I privately want to murder and dismember people in my basement, I do not have protection under a right to privacy.

The Constitution does not distinguish rights based on developmental stages. Again, this is an interpretation made by the courts.. same way they interpreted slaves to not be included.

And you liberal smart asses can mark my words, the day and time will come when unborn fetuses have protected constitutional rights which abortionists will not be able to deny under the law. That is going to happen one way or another, eventually.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The rights to privacy do not trump the right to life.

The fetus only has the rights that the woman concerned is willing to extend to it during the first and second trimesters. That is her decision and not yours.

The Constitution does not distinguish rights based on developmental stages. Again, this is an interpretation made by the courts.. same way they interpreted slaves to not be included.

Actually it does since RvW is now part of the Law of the Land. Secondly the Constitution defined slaves as being only worth 3/5 ths of a person in the Census. The courts didn't make that determination. Social Studies 101.

And you liberal smart asses can mark my words, the day and time will come when unborn fetuses have protected constitutional rights which abortionists will not be able to deny under the law. That is going to happen one way or another, eventually.

Your crystal ball tells you only want you want to believe. Women make up the majority of the voting population and they are not about to surrender their rights to those who want to take them away.

 

[Boss]

The fetus only has the rights that the woman concerned is willing to extend to it during the first and second trimesters. That is her decision and not yours.

Wait, do you think we are actually having an argument over whether or not SCOTUS has ruled abortions are a woman's right to choose? Because that seems to be quite a silly argument when it's a matter of public record. I mean, it has been the case for over 40 years now, so I don't think anyone can argue abortions aren't viewed as a right by the courts and law.

I thought we were arguing about what the Constitution says, which is nothing about abortions or how privacy should trump human life.

Actually it does since RvW is now part of the Law of the Land. Secondly the Constitution defined slaves as being only worth 3/5 ths of a person in the Census. The courts didn't make that determination. Social Studies 101.

No, before that law was passed, the SCOTUS ruled slaves were property and not equal to people at all. They also upheld the '3/5 person' law passed by Congress. Social Studies 101.

Roe v Wade has been law of the land for over 40 years, which is why I find it astonishing that you think this could possibly be my argument. Do you think I've lived in a time vacuum for 40 years or what? I am well aware of the SCOTUS ruling in Roe and I disagree with them. Many others do as well, this is why I am confident that the law will one day be changed. Roe will not stand forever.

Your crystal ball tells you only want you want to believe. Women make up the majority of the voting population and they are not about to surrender their rights to those who want to take them away.

Women, believe it or not, happen to be both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life! I know that bigoted liberals often like to stereotype people but this is ridiculous man! Do you honestly think all women agree with abortion????