• 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!

[W:103]Abortion is legal

The DOI was not a legal document but it was a political one. In Locke’s sentence the key word is BORN, in the DOI formulation the key word is CREATED.
Anyhow, that is exactly the problem I was trying to explain to your lady friend. We can say that precious human life begins at birth, or that an individual becomes such at birth. That is a statement, that I don’t agree with, but that we can argue about.
But if you say, like the did, that human life starts at conception, that an individual becomes such at the very moment of conception, then that person is endowed with the same constitutional rights of everyone else.
That is another simple fact to understand.

Your mistake is considering the unborn as an individual. The unborn cannot be considered an individual/separate since it is still attached to the woman by the umbilical cord. It is still dependent on her bodiliy systems for nourishment, oxygen, and excremental functions.
 
While abortion is legal right now, remember some 160 years ago slavery was legal, and it was fixed. Abortion needs to be fixed too.
 
Canada is a dominion of the UK under the British Crown. You can't have royalty and equality, which is why America doesn't allow royal or Nobil titles.

That's a load of horse hockey. We have equality here in Canada. Probably more so than the USA.
 
I could be wrong, no problem. Our example is Canada, so please cite the part of the Canadian Constitution which endows these rights.

Rights cited in the Canadian Charter of Rights:

Legal Rights
Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Marginal note:Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Marginal note:Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Marginal note:Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Marginal note:proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

Marginal note:Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Marginal note:Self-crimination
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Marginal note:Interpreter
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
 
I stated a simple fact:
In every western counties every man in endowed with certain rights, like the right to life or personal liberty.
This is true even in the monarchic United Kingdom, I assure you mate. If you do not think it is true, I would love to know the reason.

It's not a fact, you didnt produce any proof that it is so.

And abortion is legal in all those countries.
 
The DOI was not a legal document but it was a political one. In Locke’s sentence the key word is BORN, in the DOI formulation the key word is CREATED.
Anyhow, that is exactly the problem I was trying to explain to your lady friend. We can say that precious human life begins at birth, or that an individual becomes such at birth. That is a statement, that I don’t agree with, but that we can argue about.
But if you say, like the did, that human life starts at conception, that an individual becomes such at the very moment of conception, then that person is endowed with the same constitutional rights of everyone else.
That is another simple fact to understand.

Then why dont all the 'Western countries" you keep referring to recognize rights for the unborn? None of them do.

None of them agree with you...so that pretty much leaves us still asking: what authority says the unborn has a right to life? Besides you.

If you could understand that people's moral perspectives on the unborn AND the law are subjective, and not based on biology, you'd be able to get a little further ahead in the discussion.

Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/subjective
 
Last edited:
If you don't know then you admit ignorance, I take it?

I admit that I asked you a question which you do not seem to wish to answer, I also admit I likely already know the answer and am toying with you because it is fun to make people admit to their arrogance and blind belief in the unproven or imagined. I just find it interesting to expose theological mental function for what is obviously is. Ignorance however is not a fitting term in that I am only ignorant of the answer you refuse to give.
 
....It would also be interesting to see why the highest number of abortions are had by women between 15 and 25,

Actually more than 50 percent of abortion patients are in their 20s have more abortions.

Less than 25 percent are teens.

From the following:
More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.6


Twelve percent of abortion patients in 2014 were adolescents: Those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3% and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.6[/B]

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
 
It's not a fact, you didnt produce any proof that it is so.

And abortion is legal in all those countries.

The proof are in every single constitution of every single western country. Canada is an example, another user has already posted the proof you are looking for.
I don’t know if you understood that I’m talking about human rights in general and not specifically about abortion...
 
It's not a fact, you didnt produce any proof that it is so.

And abortion is legal in all those countries.

Then why dont all the 'Western countries" you keep referring to recognize rights for the unborn? None of them do.

None of them agree with you...so that pretty much leaves us still asking: what authority says the unborn has a right to life? Besides you.

If you could understand that people's moral perspectives on the unborn AND the law are subjective, and not based on biology, you'd be able to get a little further ahead in the discussion.

I could be wrong, and if that’s the case just let me know, but I think that most of Western countries do recognize some rights to the unborn. That is why late term abortions are not allowed in most of European countries.
 
Your mistake is considering the unborn as an individual. The unborn cannot be considered an individual/separate since it is still attached to the woman by the umbilical cord. It is still dependent on her bodiliy systems for nourishment, oxygen, and excremental functions.

And what about someone who lives in a comatose state. Is it an individual or not?
If what makes the difference between an individual and a not-individual is the ability of one’s organism to live indipendently, what about those who need some sort of external forces to live, like someone who lives in a comatose state?
 
Human logic does not persuade God to change His mind about murdering innocent unborn babies.

You speak with such certainty about the state of God's mind when God did not express anything at all about abortion in the Bible. Please remember that when you interpret the Bible's injunctions, you are expressing your own mind, not God's.
 
I could be wrong, and if that’s the case just let me know, but I think that most of Western countries do recognize some rights to the unborn. That is why late term abortions are not allowed in most of European countries.

I told you more than once that it was not factual, at all.

And you have no sources to support any of your statements here ^^. I cannot debate suppositions.

and if the country recognized a right to life for the unborn...why do they allow any abortions at all rather than just forbidding the late term ones (which I dont accept as fact but to show the lack of logic in your assumptions)?
 
The proof are in every single constitution of every single western country. Canada is an example, another user has already posted the proof you are looking for.
I don’t know if you understood that I’m talking about human rights in general and not specifically about abortion...

Yes, she proved it's not in the Canadian Constitution, what were you reading?

And I asked you to prove something...that requires sources, links...actual proof.

You keep repeating your 'guess' and it's not correct. Scrab proved that for Canada...go ahead and prove the opposite for some other countries...their Constitutions are not confidential.
 
And what about someone who lives in a comatose state. Is it an individual or not?
If what makes the difference between an individual and a not-individual is the ability of one’s organism to live indipendently, what about those who need some sort of external forces to live, like someone who lives in a comatose state?

Someone in a comatose state has a legal guardian or other legal representative. And in many cases, that representative can request that the life of that person be ended.

But to answer your question in more detail, the comatose can exercise at least one of the things listed here, most of their physiological systems are still functioning independently, even if not all:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

The fact that I have to keep cutting and pasting the same information means that either you arent reading carefully or are just ignoring my posts. That is inconsiderate. I am showing you more respect than that.
 
I could be wrong, and if that’s the case just let me know, but I think that most of Western countries do recognize some rights to the unborn. That is why late term abortions are not allowed in most of European countries.

In the US there are no fetal rights ( no rights but we do have states rights. The individual state may may take a compelling interest in the human life and proscribe ( ban) abortions past viability except to save the life of the woman or save her from irreparable damage to one of her bodily functions such as ( stroke, heart attack , paralysis from the neck down, liver or kidney damage etc.) If the pregnancy were continued.
 
I didn’t talk about just teens. I talked about the group of people aged between 15 and 25, which includes women in their mid-twenties.

I know you did not talk about just teens yet you grouped teen in with the 20 to 25 years old.

The teens have less abortions than those age 20 to and less abortions than women age 25 to 29. Which makes me wonder why you were so anxious to include teens with women over age 20.
 
Back
Top Bottom