• 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 have not made empty assertions.
You've made many assertions without affirming facts backing such claims.

You still haven't explained whose moral reasoning nor provided citations to support it.
I haven't explained whose moral reasoning?🤷‍♂️
👇
The lawmakers who codified moral concepts into law.

Okay then give me the affirming facts for stating that there is no legal basis and justification for abortion restrictions.
The US Constitution, Federal law, and established legal precedent. I'm sure that has all been pointed our and explained before.
That's not giving affirming facts. Your response just references broad entities.
 
Actually, it's states that determine abortion laws, not the federal government.

Also untrue. For example, there's a federal law banning partial birth abortion.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
You've made many assertions without affirming facts backing such claims.
Such as?
I haven't explained whose moral reasoning?🤷‍♂️
👇
No, that's just being vague. Again, what "lawmakers?" Whose "morality?" Citations affirming this?
That's not giving affirming facts. Your response just references broad entities.
Those "entities" are factual established documents providing the basis and precedence for laws and legal reasoning. They do not provide "moral" arguments.
 
It should be overturned. There is no Constituional authority for such a federal law.
There is no constitutional authority or reason for any abortion restrictions.
 
You're right, if the discussion is a legal argument about abortion. My position is based on abortion as a moral issue.
Abortion itself is a legal discussion, as laws are being argued or put into effect to limit abortion services.
 
I don't know what you mean by that.
It seems your position is this:

"Aborting your fetus for any reason is morally wrong and you should not be able to do it. However, after the child is born, they are your problem."
 
It seems your position is this:

"Aborting your fetus for any reason is morally wrong and you should not be able to do it. However, after the child is born, they are your problem."
You've nailed the conservative's anti-abortion position correctly.
 
You've made many assertions without affirming facts backing such claims.
👇
Morality is subjective and is irrelevant to law.
The US Constitution, Federal law, and established legal precedent. I'm sure that has all been pointed our and explained before.
There is no constitutional authority or reason for any abortion restrictions.



No, that's just being vague. Again, what "lawmakers?" Whose "morality?" Citations affirming this?
US lawmakers obviously. My response is vague but your response referencing broad entities to claim no legal basis exists isn't vague, right? Below is excerpts from the speech John F Kennedy gave on civil rights. When drafting/voting for criminal laws, lawmakers think about reasoning utilizing moral concepts. Law has been influenced by morality.
👇
We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people.
Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law.
Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-civil-rights-act-1964/


Those "entities" are factual established documents providing the basis and precedence for laws and legal reasoning. They do not provide "moral" arguments.
You need to explain why those entities give affirming facts. Simply stating "the Constitution" is not an affirming fact. Basis and precedence for laws and legal reasoning is given by the judicial branch, not those documents. The judicial branch has spoken. There is legal basis for abortion restrictions which is why courts have upheld abortion restrictions. If there was no legal basis or justification for abortion restrictions then the courts would not uphold abortion restrictions.

This is legal basis for abortion restrictions:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf

Please explain how a court can be in favor of abortion restrictions if according to you, no legal basis or justification exists and it violates the constitution.
 
Last edited:
You're right, if the discussion is a legal argument about abortion. My position is based on abortion as a moral issue.
And I addressed that with my responses on your characterization of the essentials and responsibilities in life, and the repercussions on others, as "conveniences".

You refused to follow up on that, you blew it off. So why are you being dishonest?

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
It seems your position is this:

"Aborting your fetus for any reason is morally wrong and you should not be able to do it. However, after the child is born, they are your problem."

No, that is not my position. I believe abortion for medical reasons (safety of the mother or the unborn child) is morally justified. Abortion simply for mother's convenience is immoral.
 
👇







US lawmakers obviously. My response is vague but your response referencing broad entities to claim no legal basis exists isn't vague, right? Below is excerpts from the speech John F Kennedy gave on civil rights. When drafting/voting for criminal laws, lawmakers think about reasoning utilizing moral concepts. Law has been influenced by morality.
👇



Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-civil-rights-act-1964/
Your vagueness is why your assertions cannot be taken at face value.
You need to explain why those entities give affirming facts. Simply stating "the Constitution" is not an affirming fact. Basis and precedence for laws and legal reasoning is given by the judicial branch, not those documents. The judicial branch has spoken. There is legal basis for abortion restrictions which is why courts have upheld abortion restrictions. If there was no legal basis or justification for abortion restrictions then the courts would not uphold abortion restrictions.
The Constitution itself is the basis of our laws. The judicial branch determines the constitutionality of laws or interprets them when issues arise.
This is legal basis for abortion restrictions:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf

Please explain how a court can be in favor of abortion restrictions if according to you, no legal basis or justification exists and it violates the constitution.
I've explained this in similar discussions ad nauseum at this point. One more time in simplification: The Constitution and federal law establishes personhood and rights. The unborn are not considered persons with rights. Therefore the unborn are not deserving or due legal rights or protections. And such "protections" via abortion restrictions unduly infringes on the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman who is a legal person with rights. There is no other person harmed or infringed upon in an abortion and neither does abortion harm society. The states have not offered any legal reasoning or justification to recncile abortion restrictions with the Constitutional & federal precepts of rights and personhood, while preserving the rights and personhood of the pregnant woman.
 
No, that is not my position. I believe abortion for medical reasons (safety of the mother or the unborn child) is morally justified. Abortion simply for mother's convenience is immoral.
And that is your opinion. Someone seeking an abortion for convenience or for whatever reason at all may not find it immoral.
 
No, that is not my position. I believe abortion for medical reasons (safety of the mother or the unborn child) is morally justified. Abortion simply for mother's convenience is immoral.
So let’s say a woman is pregnant with a fetus that has a significant disability requiring lifelong care?
 
So let’s say a woman is pregnant with a fetus that has a significant disability requiring lifelong care?
A woman still has, or should have, the option of abortion or not if she chooses. However, I would also consider the quality on life for both the disabled child and the woman. I've noticed many anti-abortionists are more for quantity of life over quality of life. Depending on the degree of disability, there may be no quality of life at all.
 
And I addressed that with my responses on your characterization of the essentials and responsibilities in life, and the repercussions on others, as "conveniences".

You refused to follow up on that, you blew it off. So why are you being dishonest?

☮️🇺🇸☮️
I'm not being dishonest at all. I do have things other than responding to you that occupy my time.
 
The federal government has very few and very limited Consitutional powers, and regulation of abortion is not among them.
Sorry, no. Since they did so, where's the opposing argument?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
I'm not being dishonest at all. I do have things other than responding to you that occupy my time.

You took the time to try and dismiss it. But sure, I'll check back.

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
So? That's up to them. My opinion is that it's immoral.
Exactly, it is up to them. And no one else to decide for them. As it should be. Like I said before, morality is subjective.
 
Sorry, no. Since they did so, where's the opposing argument?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
The opposing argument comes from the American left...if you don't like what the Constitution says just ignore it. Leave it for the courts to figure out. Guess what, the Supreme Court figured it out.
 
Back
Top Bottom