PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Abortion: Unconstitutional?
       Is abortion unconstitutional?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guitars_are_fly

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All moral and ethical objections aside, I belive abortions are prohibited by the existing Articles and Amendments of the United States Constitution. I want someone to try and prove me wrong.


-------
"A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people."
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:23 PM on April 4, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guitars_are_fly at 5:23 PM on April 4, 2008 :
All moral and ethical objections aside, I belive abortions are prohibited by the existing Articles and Amendments of the United States Constitution. I want someone to try and prove me wrong.


And this belief is based on what? There is nothing in the amendments and articles that state abortion is unconstitutional. Nowhere is it stated that such practices are unlawful.

Furthermore, the Constitution clearly states that all  further unnamed rights and powers fall within the responsibilities of the state. While Roe Vs. Wade may be unconstitutional that does not equate to abortion being unconstitutional.

(Edited by Obvious_child 4/8/2008 at 03:45 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:44 AM on April 8, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No but I think that there is something in there about the right to pursue happiness. Dead men pursue no happiness. I unfortunately lost my pocket Constitution so if you Guitars_are_fly can find mention of this you will have summed up what you are trying to say.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:14 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 8:14 PM on April 14, 2008 :
No but I think that there is something in there about the right to pursue happiness. Dead men pursue no happiness.


Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no legal standing. If you look at the DOI, it's actually just a laundry list of grievances against the Crown. The Onion made fun of it as did the Daily Show in "America the Book"  by adding silly things like "he doesn't invite us to his parties" and "he pretends he doesn't see us when we wave."


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:58 AM on April 15, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, so I don't have the right to free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to remain silent, the right to freedom of religion. And the whole separation of church and state thing that was already invalid is now even more invalid?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:35 PM on April 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 3:35 PM on April 16, 2008 :
Oh, so I don't have the right to free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to remain silent, the right to freedom of religion. And the whole separation of church and state thing that was already invalid is now even more invalid?


You are confusing the bill of rights with the DOI. The bill of rights are part of the Constitution, which is of course the highest law in the land. The DOI is just a laundry list of grievances. It has no legal standing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

www.usconstitution.net/const.html

usgovinfo.about.com/cs/historicdocuments/a/bldechist.htm

Interestingly enough, the pursuit of happiness was actually property in the early drafts.

(Edited by Obvious_child 4/16/2008 at 6:07 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 6:02 PM on April 16, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought however that this was a debate concerning the constitution, you are the only one that mentioned the Declaration of Independence.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:27 PM on April 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 5:27 PM on April 17, 2008 :
I thought however that this was a debate concerning the constitution, you are the only one that mentioned the Declaration of Independence.


Not at all. In fact you brought it up:

"No but I think that there is something in there about the right to pursue happiness."

The pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. it's in th DOI.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:44 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I only mentioned the Constitution. You may want to read back, if you do you will find that I am right.

I will concede the right to pursue happiness is in the DOI.

(Edited by SilverStar 4/27/2008 at 01:43 AM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 01:41 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 01:41 AM on April 27, 2008 :
No, I only mentioned the Constitution. You may want to read back, if you do you will find that I am right.

I will concede the right to pursue happiness is in the DOI.

(Edited by SilverStar 4/27/2008 at 01:43 AM).


For future use, you might want to remove one of the two conflicting statements in an edit.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 7:36 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did not contradicted my self. I said that I only mention the constitution.

How ever one of the things that I said was in the DOI. However I only used the word "Constitution."


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:10 PM on May 6, 2008 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I tend to notice is that everybody is so concerned about the fetus. If you want to use the pursuit of happiness theory, I recommend checking out the female's pursuit of happiness first. Why do pro-lifers concentrate so much on the "rights" and "worth" of the unborn child? Is the woman not more important being that she's here and that she is a current part of society? The only thing that really matters in the eyes of the Church and pro-life advocates is that the child be born. But what you people are not really looking at is the fact the woman that is pregnant has certain difficulties WITH having the child. In essence that is why she wants the abortion. She is unable to pursuit happiness at the fault of the unplanned pregnancy. Her ability to pursue happiness is restricted by the Church because she is incapable of having an abortion. The woman is already a part of society and, possibly, a productive one at that. There's a possibility that with that child the mother is no longer happy. The child could psychologically pick that up and become a negative part of society.

So stating that the unborn child's pursuit of happiness is being apprehended, you have set yourself up for the question of the mother's happiness. The church, in most cases, is very, very gender bias. If men were the ones that got pregnant, abortion would be a celebration. The fact is that the Church and pro-lifers do not put enough consideration on the woman


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 8:19 PM on January 11, 2009 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so why not put the baby up for adoption. As far as not having babies, with the exception of rape (she didn't have a choice), just don't have sex.

In cases of rape if we are to have abortions in those cases than the rapist should be tried for murder because it his fault that the baby will die because it it his fault that the prospective mother got pregnant.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:18 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not related but my honest opinion rape should be a death sentence regardless and under no exceptions.

Aside from that, adoption doesn't work at all. Most children in adoption/foster systems turn to crime statistically


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 3:12 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
akrolsmir

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You believe in the death sentence and not abortion... Interesting, but that's a different debate.

So, you're claiming that "Most children in adoption/foster systems turn to crime statistically". So over half of all children placed in foster care or adoption turn to crime?

And what does it mean to turn to crime? Students cheat on tests and homework, which is definitely breaking rules. Isn't that crime?

And also, you're implying that it would be better to kill of those children now then let them commit crimes. Do you believe all criminals deserve the death penalty?

The unborn child would be better able to pursuit happiness as an orphan then dead, too. You know this from the sheer fact that there are orphans that don't commit suicide. This means that they derive more happiness from being alive then dead.

Why is the women any more important then the fetus? And should her right to whatever it is that suffers from carrying a child more important then the child's life itself? In other words, is one person's pursuit of happiness more important then another's life?

If you were to believe that, then murder would be easily justified, since the murderer's pursuit of happiness involved someone else's death.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 03:02 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off I would appreciate more of a respectable tone. Don't question me and act all sarcastic as though you were clever. It isn't professional at all.

Also, when you mocked me by saying that students commit "crimes" by cheating I'd say not that isn't a crime. Nice try being funny, but when I say crime I mean serious stuff. You know? Drug dealing, assault, gang related activity, murder, arson, rape. These are crimes. And if you asked me should drug dealers, murderers, rapists and gang bangers be killed, I'd say "yes and give me the gun, it's been a while since I enjoyed myself"

Also, there are orphans that don't commit crimes or commit suicide. Doesn't mean that they're happy. Doesn't mean that they have a good job, or a home or even money. So how's this for a response to mommy and daddy? "Thanks for putting me up for adoption, I'm having a great time living on the 40-57 St. Rockefeller Center subway station! And don't worry about food, there are a bunch of guys here who throw away half eaten popcorn and pizza."

And are you serious? Why is the woman any more important than the fetus? Because just maybe the woman is alive and has a function in society that could very well be positive? I don't know I'm just guessing here. Lets see I can get a choice between having a future nurse who could complete medical school and save lives OR just maybe I can get an adopted child who will be joining Mara Salvatrucha or 18th Street. Decisions decisions.

And to finish this little tidbit off, a murderer that pursues happiness by means of killing someone is probably clinically insane. With some form of Antisocial personality disorder and some others thrown in there and most likely would be better off dead in the first place. I mean really, most people in jail for murder have had parents who didn't want them, been in adoption, had abusive parents and the such.

By the way, if you answer to this, please try to word your phrases more appropriately and try your best to come up with stuff while maintaining respect for my intellect. I really don't need someone acting sarcastic and try to act like s/he knows it all


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:34 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
akrolsmir

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry if I came across as sarcastic. My intention was to clarify the debate so as to better understand your take of abortion, and I tend to do that by asking questions.

By placing constraints on the definitions of crimes, I was ensuring that you couldn't simply show that over half of all children in adoption/foster homes commit lesser and forgivable intrusions of the law, but rather the more serious crimes. Now that you've defined what you believe crimes to be in the context, I challenge you to show that over half of all children in foster/adoption systems turn to these serious crimes of drug dealing, murdering, raping, arson, and assault.

What exactly do you mean by "enjoyed myself"?

I didn't say that they were happy. I simply said that they derive more happiness from being alive then dead. This means that, unhappy as they may be, they feel that they are happier as they are then dead. In other words, by killing them now, you are not allowing them to pursue happiness as well as they would have preferred.

Most people are unhappy at some point or even most of their lives. This doesn't mean that they should have been killed to spare them this unhappiness. In the same way, unborn fetuses who might grow up unhappily shouldn't be killed to spare them growing up as an orphan, if s/he would prefer to be alive.

Your saying that the woman is more important on the fetus based on the fact that the woman is alive and can function in society positively. However, first, this is flawed in the regard that you're simply assuming that the child will be necessarily not as beneficial to the world as the mother. This might be true in some or even most cases, but definitely not true in all.

Second, your argument relies on both the fact that having the baby and putting it up for adoption will cause the would-be nurse to quit school. Why is that? There's nothing wrong for an adult to get a degree and the occupation for her choice. A year of pregnancy doesn't have to stop her career, just pause it. And why would that particular girl be necessary to save lives as a nurse? Her role could be filled by other nurses who would most likely have similar training and ability to save patients. She wouldn't necessarily be missed. The alternative would be that the life of a person is ended decades early.

I'm glad to see that you don't believe that murder is justified. In the same way, abortion isn't justified, since both cases involve the taking of a life to bring about more happiness to another.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 03:28 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abortion isn't the taking of life it's the prevention of it. And I don't have the statistics on me that prove that orphans go to crime, it's just way more likely. And yea, people get unhappy because they are in fact human. I've been unhappy most my life due to the fact that I can't find a girl and keep her for my life but at the same time I am glad I'm happy. Most of the reason that I'm happy isn't because I'm alive it's because I have parents who love me, a great family and good friends and my "evil-doing" days are over.

And we are in fact missing the point. You're looking at the unborn fetus as if they all have the potential to end world hunger or end war or find a cure for cancer. The mother, in my opinion, is much, much more important because unlike the fetus that has one life to live, the mother can bring about many, many, many more children than just one. So if a girl gets pregnant and isn't ready and has a child, it is less likely that the child will grow up to be the next Einstein or Hawk. But if she has one when she's ready, happy and prepared, the child has a better chance of success.

And besides that fact, do you have any clue how hard it is to go to school with a kid and a low paying job? I mean if the girl is rich then yes I would recommend her having the child. But at the same time, if the girl is 18-20, no real solid relationship, working two jobs and trying her best to stay in school and living alone in a dormitory or at an apartment building then I think it would be better for her to have the say in the situation. All women really ask for is that choice. If you outlaw abortion why not go the whole nine yards? Don't let women vote, don't let them get jobs in the same field as men, keep the whole "house-wife" concept in practice and make them practically slaves to a man's whim. In essence, all of these things are doing the same thing. They are all restricting a woman's rights and a woman's choice.

And I'd like to pull out a little something you wrote.
"The alternative would be that the life of a person is ended decades early."
Same thing goes for aborted children. They'll die eventually. No child can live for all eternity so why all the fight for the fetus? It'll die sooner or later! Sudden Infant Death Syndrome could just as easily kill an almost aborted child as any other. I've personally come close to death many times. I was hit by multiple cars (I was stupid enough to think that they could see me when in reality I didn't even see them half the time) I've been shot at, stabbed, cut, fell, almost drowned a few times. All of these could have been my last few seconds on earth but luckily enough I lived. What's to say that a newborn wouldn't die like that?

And murder can only sometimes be justified. If someone points a gun at my head (again) and tries to kill me I would sure as hell defend myself and if he dies in the process sei la vi. If a chick gets pregnant and "kills" the fetus sei la vi and most of all if it was rape, incest and or other.

Just to finish it though, when I said I'd enjoy myself I meant that I would personally love killing a drug dealer, murderer or rapist. Arsonists and assaulters should be put in prison seeing as how they have certain ticks about them but anybody that deals drugs harder than weed, murderers and any types of rapists should just be killed. I would have no problem with taking out one of those types of people. I would consider myself doing society a favor.


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 2:59 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
akrolsmir

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, are we trying to maximize happiness in the world as per the DOI, because of the topic? I'll structure my next case as so. If you feel differently, say so.

You say that you have parents who love you, and nice friends and family, and don't commit crimes. You say that without these things, you wouldn't be as happy, and that's probably very true. However, it doesn't mean that the orphan that is lacking these things is any less happy for lacking it, as I think you imply. The millionaire that has a private jet and a mansion and friends and vacations 6 days of the week isn't necessarily happier than you are, because humans grow to expect and demand what at first gave them joy. They no longer receive any more joy from the item but would lose joy if they lost it. For instance, if you get a bigger TV, you'd be a little happier in the short term. However, pretty soon you'd get used to the big TV, and wouldn't be any happier then before you got the new TV. (You'd be unhappy if you were to lose the TV, but thats also in the short term). The whole point of this is, even though your standard of living is higher than that of an orphan and that orphan would be happier in the short run if s/he were to be you, you're not necessarily any happier then the orphan who's happy that he had 5 meatballs for supper as opposed to 4, or saw a butterfly on the playground. You might think s/he'd be unhappier than you are, but that's only because you'd be unhappy in his place. That's like the millionaire thinking that you're necessarily unhappier than he is because he'd be unhappy in your place. As a result, killing the fetus to prevent his unhappiness growing up would be like killing you to end your unhappiness about not finding a girl. Both are absurd because you both find happiness in other places. Thus, to maximize the happiness and uphold the DOI, you shouldn't support abortion.

Now, about the fetus not being an Einstein. I agree, the fetus isn't very likely to be a genius, but then again, neither is a normal baby. The chance in each case is so remote that even if it's more likely for a normal baby to be a genius then for an orphan, the best thing to do would be to have more people for a better chance of getting that next brilliant human to advance society. Another problem with that argument is that they don't actually have to end world hunger to contribute to society. As a whole, people forward humanity, since they make enough and often more money than they need to keep themselves alive. The money shows that society respects their work enough to repay it with something, which they use to pay for their own expenses. If society does in fact respect their work in that way, it means that they have contributed, at least a small part, to humankind. For instance, when they pay a construction worker, engineer, doctor, or any other job, society shows that they think the job being done is valuable, the value of which is expressed by the amount of money. That person then takes that money to survive, and the fact that s/he can do so means that at the very least, s/he is not dragging down humanity. You might argue that more people who drag down humanity (beggars, homeless, those in need of charity) are likely to be orphans, and that's probably true, but my response to that would be that even if these orphans are two, three, even four times as likely to become drains upon society, I wouldn't think more than 20% of all orphans become so, and taken as a whole group, orphans contribute more to society than they drain (they produce more money as a whole than they spend to live).

When you say that the mother can have many, many more children than just one, you're assuming that first, the child she has won't be a girl who could have as many children as the mother could, and second, the would-be aborting mother won't have more children after this one, neither of which are for sure. And if she wanted to abort the one right now and have another one later, it would bring more happiness to the world and forward humanity's interest if she had them both.

On the difficulty of going to school with a kid: It might be hard, but I'm not encouraging those who would abort out of inability to care for the child to have the child anyways AND keep it. I would hope that they would be given up to an orphanage or put in foster care. She doesn't have to have the burden of raising the child to adulthood while she's unable to do so. And to your argument that banning abortion would lead to a slippery slope in which we remove all female rights: We're not banning abortion to be sexist. We're doing so because we don't think women should be allowed to kill children any more than men are, and allowing abortion is like giving guns to women and saying that they are legally allowed to shoot their children to end all the future misery of the children. Not banning abortion because you're taking away some rights of a women is like not banning murder because you're taking away some rights of the murderer. In other words, they shouldn't have does rights in the first place.

About how the fetus should die because s/he'll "die sooner or later": Should we kill you now because you'll die sooner or later? Should we annihilate all the humans in the world right now because eventually entropy will ensure that everyone dies later? No. Life isn't about trying not to die, because everyone (except for a handful of people, if you believe in certain religions) dies. Instead, life is about what you can accomplish before you die, and the fetus can accomplish more with decades of life than he can right now. "What's to say a newborn won't die like that?" Well, if all newborns died like that there wouldn't be any humans. Even if infant mortality is something like 25%, there's still the 75 other percent of infants who would have grown up. Killing them all because 25% of them would have died anyways might as well be killing four people because one of them would have died anyways.

You're saying that it's life if the person trying to kill you dies from you self defense, and that's true. However, it's not life for the mother to kill the fetus. In most cases, the mother isn't killing the child in self defense or rape or incest, as quoting the summary of this website:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

0.3%+1%+0.5% is 1.8%, or less than 2% of all abortions are for rape, incest, risk to maternal health, or fetal abnormality. So even if all of those cases are legitimate arguments (and I'd be willing to argue against each one), for every one case that is based on that for a reason, there are 49 other abortions going on because the girl can't afford to raise the baby or doesn't want to live with the shame of doing so. Would you kill 50 people because one of them was a murderer and you wanted him to die out of self defense? And that's all based on the premise that those reasons are actually legitimate ones for an abortion.

And even if you think the killing of all drug dealers, murderers, or rapists is moral (not believing in capital punishment myself, I don't agree), until you can show me that more of the fetuses will grow up to become this kind of person then a normal citizen, albeit possibly a little poorer, killing a sizable amount of people because some of them would have been this kind of person isn't justified.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 2:41 PM on March 15, 2009 | IP
alfa

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Huge Debate happening right now. Definitely heated: Abortion: Where does it stand?. – What do you think?

http://budurl.com/abortiondebate



(Edited by alfa 9/28/2009 at 7:09 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 7:06 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
GabrielleElaineBiggs

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abortion is fine as long as the fetus can't feel it or the Mother is in danger.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:30 PM on January 17, 2013 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.