• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Roe was overturned, US had infant mortality spike, researchers say

I understand the 9th Amendment is very important and I wouldn't want to challenge that. But how do you think the bolded link guarantees a right to abortion?

You get to choose to end a pregnancy to not produce offspring. Again, nothing there says people may not have sex. There is no "punishment" for normal social behavior and there is a much safer medical procedure to end it.

Why wouldnt it allow abortion?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
It hasnt been that I know of. I'd like to see it challenged in court. No one ever seems to consider it.
Actually it has. The Ninth Amendment was argued in Doe v. Bolton (1973).
👇
Questions presented
Whether 26-1201 to 26-1203 of the Georgia Code by limiting the grounds for the performance of abortions deprive women and physicians of their fundamental rights of privacy and liberty in violation of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution

Holding
The three procedural conditions in 26-1202 (b) of Ga. Criminal Code violate the Fourteenth Amendment. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia affirmed.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

Since the Supreme Court held that only the only violation was with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment appears to be a weak argument.
 
Actually it has. The Ninth Amendment was argued in Doe v. Bolton (1973).
👇

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

Since the Supreme Court held that only the only violation was with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment appears to be a weak argument.

Thanks. It doesnt specifically address the 9th Amendment right I bolded tho, just abortion.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
You get to choose to end a pregnancy to not produce offspring. Again, nothing there says people may not have sex. There is no "punishment" for normal social behavior and there is a much safer medical procedure to end it.

Why wouldnt it allow abortion?
Thanks. It doesnt specifically address the 9th Amendment right I bolded tho, just abortion.
Just because one can medically end a pregnancy, doesn't mean that there must be a guaranteed right to do so.

Similarly, while people may be able to drive cars, it doesn’t mean everyone has an unrestricted right to drive. Capability alone doesn’t equate to an unqualified legal right. Having the means to end a pregnancy does not imply a guaranteed right to it.
 
Just because one can medically end a pregnancy, doesn't mean that there must be a guaranteed right to do so.

Why wouldnt it be? Esp once it was a much safer option than pregnancy/childbirth?

Similarly, while people may be able to drive cars, it doesn’t mean everyone has an unrestricted right to drive. Capability alone doesn’t equate to an unqualified legal right. Having the means to end a pregnancy does not imply a guaranteed right to it.

Who said otherwise? Driving isnt right or wrong, it's restricted to make it safer. Who has objections to any regulation of abortion for patient safety? No one I know. It's currently under the same standard regulations and guidelines as other medical procedures, right? To prevent sepsis, to limit internal damage, regulating pain medication, etc.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Why wouldnt it be? Esp once it was a much safer option than pregnancy/childbirth?
Are you arguing that if an option is safer, it should be accessible as a right?? Okay... Then one can argue that there should be a right to pedestrian bridges instead of crosswalks, as they are safer. People have the right to the safer option when it comes to everything, right? One can also argue the right to work remotely since it's safer due to risk of driving, etc...

Who said otherwise? Driving isnt right or wrong, it's restricted to make it safer.
Laws were made to restrict driving to make it safer, but people don't have the right to safer driving. There's a difference between regulating an activity to make it safer and having a right to a guaranteed level of safety within that activity; there isn't a right to a guaranteed level of safety.

Who has objections to any regulation of abortion for patient safety? No one I know. It's currently under the same standard regulations and guidelines as other medical procedures, right? To prevent sepsis, to limit internal damage, regulating pain medication, etc.
I object to abortion because it ends a human life, not due to patient safety. So the fact that it's under the same standard regulations and guidelines as other medical procedures is a moot point.
 
I object to abortion because it ends a human life, not due to patient safety.
Then don't have an abortion. Problem solved. Not everyone shares your objections nor is required to.
 
Then don't have an abortion. Problem solved. Not everyone shares your objections nor is required to.
Your response is similar to me saying,"I object to stealing because it harms others" and then receiving the response,"Then don’t steal."

Laws against stealing exist because theft causes harm to others. In the same way, abortion causes harm to another human life.
 
Are you arguing that if an option is safer, it should be accessible as a right?? Okay... Then one can argue that there should be a right to pedestrian bridges instead of crosswalks, as they are safer. People have the right to the safer option when it comes to everything, right? One can also argue the right to work remotely since it's safer due to risk of driving, etc...

Answer my question before asking more of your own. Safer laws and restrictions apply to all sorts of things that arent rights.

Laws were made to restrict driving to make it safer, but people don't have the right to safer driving. There's a difference between regulating an activity to make it safer and having a right to a guaranteed level of safety within that activity; there isn't a right to a guaranteed level of safety.

No one said anything about a right to drive. The restrictions/regulations are for safety.

I object to abortion because it ends a human life, not due to patient safety. So the fact that it's under the same standard regulations and guidelines as other medical procedures is a moot point.

And many people do not obect to it. And medicine prioritizes the patient...you already know this. You dismissing all that is not any argument to substantiate your view.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Last edited:
Your response is similar to me saying,"I object to stealing because it harms others" and then receiving the response,"Then don’t steal."
Exactly. Don't steal. Problem solved.
Laws against stealing exist because theft causes harm to others. In the same way, abortion causes harm to another human life.
What "human life?" It's a clump of cells, akin to a tumor or parasite. Meanwhile, such laws ignore the actual human life that is the pregnant woman. And since it's the woman's own body being used, she can do whatever she wants to it. We "harm" humans in self defence and such. The same can be applied to a woman dealing with pregnancy, especially since pregnancy and birth carries risks to her "life."
 
Your response is similar to me saying,"I object to stealing because it harms others" and then receiving the response,"Then don’t steal."

Laws against stealing exist because theft causes harm to others. In the same way, abortion causes harm to another human life.

No "other" is harmed. Not something that federally or morally supersedes the life, health, and membership as citizen in society, every day, of the protected person carrying it. And "the law" is the only way to impose restrictions. Any woman should be allowed to morally make her own decision, it's immoral to impose force of law on her removing her consent to her own . So it's 2 mostly separate things.

What argument do you have that justifies protecting the unborn at the expense of the woman and all that she is as an individual and to others in society?

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
Why wouldnt it be? Esp once it was a much safer option than pregnancy/childbirth?
Answer my question before asking more of your own.
There isn't an automatic right to a safer option. The courts may rule that there is a right to a safer option, but it's case specific and based on factors such as the jurisdiction, state constitution, past court cases, and degree of risk. State courts have already ruled in favor of abortion restrictions which indicates that there isn't an automatic right to a safer option in some states. IMHO by reading the court cases, the degree of risk needs to be grave (the laws already allow exceptions for significant risk to mother's health) for the law to be invalidated.
 
There isn't an automatic right to a safer option. The courts may rule that there is a right to a safer option, but it's case specific and based on factors such as the jurisdiction, state constitution, past court cases, and degree of risk. State courts have already ruled in favor of abortion restrictions which indicates that there isn't an automatic right to a safer option in some states. IMHO by reading the court cases, the degree of risk needs to be grave (the laws already allow exceptions for significant risk to mother's health) for the law to be invalidated.

I never said right (see bold in a previous post). Please stop repeating yourself. I stopped reading at that. Please answer my questions if you want the discussion to move forward, rather than attempting to redirect it.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Exactly. Don't steal. Problem solved.
Then stealing should be made legal just like abortion. I'll just tell people not to steal and likewise not to have an abortion. If you think that stealing should be illegal, I'll simply tell you,"Don't steal."

What "human life?" It's a clump of cells, akin to a tumor or parasite. Meanwhile, such laws ignore the actual human life that is the pregnant woman. And since it's the woman's own body being used, she can do whatever she wants to it. We "harm" humans in self defence and such. The same can be applied to a woman dealing with pregnancy, especially since pregnancy and birth carries risks to her "life."
What species is it and is it alive? A tumor/parasite doesn't have the potential for consciousness. A fetus is an actual human life.
 
Just because one can medically end a pregnancy, doesn't mean that there must be a guaranteed right to do so.
Why wouldnt it be? Esp once it was a much safer option than pregnancy/childbirth?
There isn't an automatic right to a safer option. The courts may rule that there is a right to a safer option, but it's case specific and based on factors such as the jurisdiction, state constitution, past court cases, and degree of risk. State courts have already ruled in favor of abortion restrictions which indicates that there isn't an automatic right to a safer option in some states. IMHO by reading the court cases, the degree of risk needs to be grave (the laws already allow exceptions for significant risk to mother's health) for the law to be invalidated.
I never said right. Please stop repeating yourself. I stopped reading at that. Please answer my questions if you want the discussion to move forward, rather than attempting to redirect it.
I interpreted your question,"Why wouldn't it be?" as "Why wouldn't it be a guaranteed right?"

It's not a guaranteed right because there isn't an automatic right to a safer option. Your question has already been answered. Otherwise, explain what do you mean by,"Why wouldnt it be?"

Why wouldn’t it be what, specifically?
 
Last edited:
I interpreted your question,"Why wouldn't it be?" as "Why wouldn't it be a guaranteed right?"

Your question has already been answered. Otherwise, explain what do you mean by,"Why wouldnt it be?"

No...it's "why wouldnt she/anyone be offered the much safer procedure?" Isnt it a patient "right "or medical ethics for the safest procedure to be made available?

I've told you at least 3 times it wasnt about a specific right. It's basic medicine. Why would a skier after an accident be offered the safest treatment...but not a pregnant woman? I know you believe it's because she's carrying an unborn human. So skip the games and provide legal or moral justification to deny her the safest medical procedure? Please refer to post 211 first so I dont have to repeat it.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Then stealing should be made legal just like abortion. I'll just tell people not to steal and likewise not to have an abortion. If you think that stealing should be illegal, I'll simply tell you,"Don't steal."
Since I said nothing about stealing, nor am I using it as a flawed comparison, it makes no difference to me. Stealing might hurt you. Abortion does not.
So again, why should anyone agree with or be required to follow your opposition to abortion?
What species is it and is it alive? A tumor/parasite doesn't have the potential for consciousness. A fetus is an actual human life.
What difference does it make? An embryo/fetus isn't conscious either. A tumore/parasite are alive too. Another thing they all have in common: they are all not persons nor have any rights.
 
No...it's "why wouldnt she/anyone be offered the much safer procedure?" Isnt it a patient "right "or medical ethics for the safest procedure to be made available?
It's not an unqualified right under law for the safest procedure to be made available. So if a law says that the procedure cannot be made available and the courts uphold the law, then that can be why one isn't offered the much safer procedure.

I've told you at least 3 times it wasnt about a specific right. It's basic medicine. Why would a skier after an accident be offered the safest treatment...but not a pregnant woman?
Because of abortion laws. Laws supercede medical recommendations.

I know you believe it's because she's carrying an unborn human. So skip the games and provide legal or moral justification to deny her the safest medical procedure? Please refer to post 211 first so I dont have to repeat it.
The legal justification has been offered by the courts and differs by jurisdiction. States can enact laws that deny her the safest medical procedure as it's not an unqualified right.

As for moral justification, I would argue that abortion is in general not the safest medical procedure because it directly causes great harm another (the unborn), it's typically much safer for abortion to not be performed.
 
It's not an unqualified right under law for the safest procedure to be made available. So if a law says that the procedure cannot be made available and the courts uphold the law, then that can be why one isn't offered the much safer procedure.

Yes and I'm asking for the foundation for that. Why abortion is the exception to otherwise normal, ethical medical practice...to offer the safest medical procedure to the patient.

Your desperate avoidance of the main subject here is obvious.

Because of abortion laws. Laws supercede medical recommendations.

See above

The legal justification has been offered by the courts and differs by jurisdiction. States can enact laws that deny her the safest medical procedure as it's not an unqualified right.

OK. Yet it has nothing to do with abortion being wrong. Because there are just as many states that support the right to choose. So...again, I asked about why or 'who says' it's wrong?

If you want to stick to 'the law,' as you know, the federal govt and the Const support a right to choose, since they do not protect the unborn. This is why women "may" kill their own unborn or go elsewhere to have it killed.

So it really does just come down to some state laws determining a medical procedure is wrong as an elective, not abortion itself. 🤷

As for moral justification, I would argue that abortion is in general not the safest medical procedure because it directly causes great harm another (the unborn), it's typically much safer for abortion to not be performed.

I already rebutted that in post 211. I told you that. Please address it there. It will make this post shorter.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Since I said nothing about stealing, nor am I using it as a flawed comparison, it makes no difference to me. Stealing might hurt you. Abortion does not.
So again, why should anyone agree with or be required to follow your opposition to abortion?
Not a flawed comparison and your refutation fails because I don't consider something wrong just because it doesn't have the potential to directly harm me.

People robbing banks doesn't harm me and I do my banking online. I'll just tell people not to rob banks and likewise not to have an abortion. If you think that bank robbery should be illegal, I'll simply tell you,"Don't rob banks."

People should agree with my opposition to abortion based on moral reasoning.

What difference does it make? An embryo/fetus isn't conscious either. A tumore/parasite are alive too. Another thing they all have in common: they are all not persons nor have any rights.
The difference is that a tumor/parasite doesn't have the potential for consciousness while an embyro/fetus does.
 
Yes and I'm asking for the foundation for that. Why abortion is the exception to otherwise normal, ethical medical practice...to offer the safest medical procedure to the patient.

Your desperate avoidance of the main subject here is obvious.
You didn't ask for the foundation at first. I don't believe I'm avoiding and answered the question already. Your skier example essentially asks the same question.

Here is your descriptive answer:
👇
Because of abortion laws. Laws supercede medical recommendations.
Unless a doctor is willing to risk going to prison, they will abide by law. So many don't perform abortions in states where it's illegal or hand out abortion medication within the state. This is your descriptive answer as to why abortion is currently the exception in descriptive terms.

Here is your normative answer:
👇
Abortion is in general not the safest medical procedure because it directly causes great harm another (the unborn), it's typically much safer for abortion to not be performed.
In other words, your question has a false presupposition. Abortion is not the safest medical procedure as the act of abortion causes great harm to others. Abortion ought to not be considered the safest medical procedure to all impacted parties in the vast majority of the cases (except when mother's health is at grave risk such as over 50%+ chance of death).

As for foundation, the foundation is moral reasoning. Acts of commission that causes harm to others is wrong.

OK. Yet it has nothing to do with abortion being wrong. Because there are just as many states that support the right to choose. So...again, I asked about why or 'who says' it's wrong?
Your conflating legality with morality. Many states also support the right to be dishonest to family members, lying in relationships, refusing to help people in dire need, and treating people badly. Just because one has a legal right to commit an act does not mean that it's moral. I say that it's morally wrong.

If you want to stick to 'the law,' as you know, the federal govt and the Const support a right to choose, since they do not protect the unborn. This is why women "may" kill their own unborn or go elsewhere to have it killed.

So it really does just come down to some state laws determining a medical procedure is wrong as an elective, not abortion itself. 🤷
Then the laws ought to be changed to remove any loopholes because abortion causes great harm to others.

I already rebutted that in post 211. I told you that. Please address it there. It will make this post shorter.
You didn't because you conflated legal concepts with moral arguments.
 
You didn't ask for the foundation at first. I don't believe I'm avoiding and answered the question already. Your skier example essentially asks the same question.

Here is your descriptive answer:
👇

Unless a doctor is willing to risk going to prison, they will abide by law. So many don't perform abortions in states where it's illegal or hand out abortion medication within the state. This is your descriptive answer as to why abortion is currently the exception in descriptive terms.

Here is your normative answer:
👇

In other words, your question has a false presupposition. Abortion is not the safest medical procedure as the act of abortion causes great harm to others. Abortion ought to not be considered the safest medical procedure to all impacted parties in the vast majority of the cases (except when mother's health is at grave risk such as over 50%+ chance of death).

As for foundation, the foundation is moral reasoning. Acts of commission that causes harm to others is wrong.


Your conflating legality with morality. Many states also support the right to be dishonest to family members, lying in relationships, refusing to help people in dire need, and treating people badly. Just because one has a legal right to commit an act does not mean that it's moral. I say that it's morally wrong.


Then the laws ought to be changed to remove any loopholes because abortion causes great harm to others.


You didn't because you conflated legal concepts with moral arguments.

Enough of this crap. I asked you why. And you are picking it apart in hopes of diverting into something else.

I am not conflating legality with morality and I even said "mostly" because the violation of and recognition of rights has a moral component.

Either give straightforward answers...and then ask your questions...or just bother someone else. Here's the question again: Why is abortion the exception to otherwise normal, ethical medical practice...to offer the safest medical procedure to the patient?

Feel free to offer your moral or legal reasoning. Supported with more than your personal beliefs, as you usually do, and then I keep asking for some "foundation"...the basis...for your belief or opinion. Religion, legal treatise, philosophy, etc.

You still havent adequately answered this: "Who says abortion is wrong?" But I'm pretty sure the answers for both are similar.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Not a flawed comparison and your refutation fails because I don't consider something wrong just because it doesn't have the potential to directly harm me
What you consider right or wrong may not be shared by everyone. Not everyone views abortion as wrong. You're trying to insert your judgment values onto others.
People robbing banks doesn't harm me and I do my banking online. I'll just tell people not to rob banks and likewise not to have an abortion. If you think that bank robbery should be illegal, I'll simply tell you,"Don't rob banks."
Makes no difference to me. I'm not harmed either. Good thing banks are FDIC insured.
People should agree with my opposition to abortion based on moral reasoning.
Morality is subjective and not everyone shares your moral qualms. No one is required to follow your morals. I do not need "moral reasoning" to argue against abortion restrictions.
The difference is that a tumor/parasite doesn't have the potential for consciousness while an embyro/fetus does.
"Potential" does not mean actual. So it's ultimately irrelevant and not a basis to establish abortion restrictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom