Instigator / Pro
17
1442
rating
45
debates
56.67%
won
Topic
#5534
Women do not have a Constitutional right to abortion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
3
After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
24
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
I would like to thank Con, for accepting this debate. I am sure it will be a great one.
I will start with three basic arguments that disprove the idea that Abortion is a Constitutional right.
First Argument: Complete Absence in the Constitution itself.
To understand the rights one possesses and lacks in the US, one must refer to the definitive source: the Constitution. The Constitution ensures equal rights for both men and women. We have the freedom to express ourselves, the right to vote, and the right to abstain from answering self-incriminating questions. Equally important is recognizing the rights we do not have. For instance, we do not possess an absolute right to public spaces. Governments have the full authority to regulate access to areas during times they consider it necessary. While individuals may protest and argue that such restrictions violate their freedoms, legal references like the Constitution often do not uphold these claims when scrutinized through the lens of law.
This is equally true for Abortion as not only is there no Constitutional reference to establish women's right to terminate their unborn children, but recent Supreme Court rulings have agreed with this logic as well. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades : NPR The Court was even recorded saying that the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that previously ruled in favor of Abortion being Constitutional was, "egregiously wrong," The fact of the matter is that Abortion has never been a protected right under the Constitution. No mention of it was ever put forth in the document and its claim to being Constitutional was based solely on a court ruling that Supreme Court now admits was simply not true.
Second Argument: People cannot make up their own rights.
One of the most common arguments made by people who say that Women do have the right to abortion despite no mention of it in the Constitution is to cite the 9th Amendment which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." U.S. Constitution - Ninth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress However, just as the 13th Amendment is constantly misconstrued to mean that slavery is fine as long as you are in jail for a crime. the 9th Amendment does not mean that people can just make up rights at their convenience it only recognizes that there are other rightsthat exist independently of the Constitution. These rights are not created bythe 9th Amendment, they are derived from natural law, common law, or thetraditions and customs of the people. And since we are talking about the possibility of Abortion being Constitutionally accepted as a right, the 9th Amendment cannot be used as the basis of Abortion rights as a result. Rights are established by law, not the minds of individuals.
Third Argument: Abortion is left to the States, not the Constitution
While it has been established that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it is not a constitutional right, this does not equate to a nationwide ban on abortion. In fact, the opposite is true. The Tenth Amendment stipulates that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. Consequently, state laws are shaped by the residents of those states. Therefore, if a sufficient number of women in a state believe abortion is necessary, they can advocate for access to abortion services. However, they cannot assert it as a constitutional right.
Thus, when individuals claim that women possess a Constitutional right to abortion, they are perpetuating a falsehood that is not legally or Constitutionally accurate. The matter of abortion is, and should be, a state issue, and it ought to be resolved justly according to the wishes of the people in those states.
Con
#2
Preamble:
My case will likely be less entertaining than usual, as (at least for me) this issue has been a shut and closed matter for quite some time.
It is worth noting that I’m not spitting in rage when I call out various evil SOBs for being evil SOBs, instead I’m mocking them in a soothing voice which is less likely to hurt their smooth brains.
Burden of Proof
While BoP traditionally rests with pro, I shall seek to affirm the opposite of the resolution, rather than solely refute any case he brings (basically I’m not trying to win by any semantic angle).
Structure:
I shall first address my opponents three core contentions, then add my own…
- Complete Absence in the Constitution Itself (pro’s)
- People Cannot Make Up Their Own Rights (pro’s)
- Abortion is Left to the States, not the Constitution (pro’s)
- Slavery is Evil (mine).
Definitions:
While most should be self-evident, there is a single key one for which we should turn to the experts…
Constitutional Rights:
- “Constitutional rights are the protections and liberties guaranteed to the people by the U.S. Constitution. Many of these rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights; such as the right to free speech in the First Amendment, and the right to a speedy and public trial in the Sixth Amendment. Even though these rights are expressly stated, their scope and proper implementation remains the subject of debate. As such, a large quantity of case law revolving around the application of constitutional rights has developed.Additionally, not all rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are explicitly stated within. Some are implied or unenumerated, like the right to privacy. These unenumerated rights are established in case law. For example, the first instance of a constitutional right to privacy comes from the seminal case Griswold v. Connecticut.”-Wex Definitions Team, Cornell Law School
Note:
I am passionate about this issue in large part because the anti-abortion movement chooses to literally use slave labor. While that is largely a different part of them being anti-constitutional than this debate focuses, it does inform why I stick up for the rights of others.
1. Complete Absence in the Constitution itself (14th)
That something is not directly mentioned, does not forbid it from being a right. It would actually have to be mentioned as an exclusion for that to occur, such as owning slaves (13th amendment).
“Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades”
Pro brings up that the supreme court rejected the very super precedent they upheld for a half-century.
First, this was part of a coop. The new “justices” which voted that identify themselves as members of the same cult as those who pushed to repel it [1]. These cultists are so misogynistic, that we don’t really share a common language with them. As an example, one of their “science” leaders (the late Todd Akin) repeatedly insisted that it’s not rape if you get her pregnant [2]. So when you and I discuss women's rights, we’re talking about people who are essentially the same as us; when they talk about women, they’re talking about some type of animal which shouldn’t be confused with thinking and feeling people. People have rights protected by the constitution, animals do not.
Second, they outright did so under insane pretext. Their case distilled down to some rights are “not deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition” so are not rights [3]. This leaves zero reason why this anti-ethical framework would not be applied to every other constitutional amendment, since at the time of their inception they too were “not deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition.”
Plus, abortion is well rooted in American history and tradition, making that case against it invalid from the onset. From about 1607 all the way to 1860 (just over 250 years), it was commonly practiced and legal until the quickening (just under half way through pregnancy). A racist and sexist group petitioned politicians with lies about science to change that (notice a trend?), not for any religious reason like the cults we see today, but literally as a business tactic against traditional medicine [3].
2. People Cannot Make Up Their Own Rights (9th)
I feel mention of the 9th amendment is ironic considering the last contention being in large part that anything is not explicitly named a right in the constitution, then it’s not a right.
“it only recognizes that there are other rightsthat exist independently of the Constitution”
Yes and no. The author of the 9th amendment set it as a catchall for rights not previously named or respected [4]. As an example (not sure if Madison would agree), slavery is evil, and goes against all American values… This didn’t magically become the case when the 13th amendment was ratified.
Because the 9th exists, the denial of rights (even if not expressly named in the constitution) is anti-constitutional.
But I do agree that people ought to not stretch the 9th for everything. That constitutional rights not expressly named exist, does not assure that anything is or isn’t one of those.
“These rights are not created bythe 9th Amendment, they are derived from … thetraditions and customs of the people.”
Abortion is a longstanding tradition/custom of the people [3], so by this standard, a right.
3. Abortion is Left to the States, Not the Constitution (10th)
Mainly see contention 1... and contention 4.
But specifically to the 10th amendment…
Where does it say that anyone's body is property of the government, to serve as a slave rather than have the government honor its promise to protect their liberties, as was enshrined from the very beginning?
Yes, that is a point about the pitfalls of double standards and cherry picking.
“If a sufficient number of women in a state believe abortion is necessary, they can advocate for access to abortion services.”
Women equal ~50% of the population, so democratically… Oh wait, not only should anyone's rights not be up for the vote, but when women’s rights are put to the vote, the staggeringly vast majority of women do not get to take part. Such as Texas, declaring any raped woman who gets pregnant (not that they believe it’s rape if she gets pregnant) who doesn’t wish to carry the progeny of her rapist, she gets life in prison for the federal (not state) crime rebelling against the will of the rapist. This of course was not put up for a vote by the people, but rather a weird cabal, who wear strange robes, and have secret meetings [5]. Yes, those groups have recently allowed a few women into their ranks, but only as a serious minority who can rarely affect an outcome (save for when the dicks are occasionally tied).
“ought to be resolved justly according to the wishes of the people in those states.”
In a vacuum that might be fine, but unfortunately women live in those states. Again, the decision makers in such places do not think women are people, thus women’s rights is an alien concept.
As an example, the anti-abortion advocates in their view that women are animals instead of people (and hatred thereof), forced the vast majority of black women to not terminate their pregnancies, which held from 1776 until 1865 [6].
4. Slavery is Evil (13th)
Thanks to ol’ Abe Lincoln, slavery is outlawed in the USA. Per the 13th Amendment:
- “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” [7].
Note that it says congress shall enforce, not individual states choosing if they want to be able to force people to work their cotton fields or whatnot.
Also note that it forbids it everywhere under US jurisdiction. This is a pretty black and white ban on slavery and involuntary servitude; urgo, people have a right to not be enslaved nor be subjected to involuntary servitude.
The sole exception is for criminals; but in spite of what Incels believe, getting laid is not a crime in the USA.
Atlantic Slave Trade
When the 13th was written, it was written with all the evils of the Atlantic Slave Trade fresh in mind. One of the most depraved forms of the slavery was forced pregnancy; and no exception to allow this to continue was put into the 13th. Rather, it outlawed ALL slavery.
Completely non-coincidentally, the states with abortion bans are largely the states which tried to find loopholes in the 13th, such as sending former slaves to prison for not honoring impossible contracts, and then have them be a slave again… Oh sorry, as a further loophole they renamed slavery “peonage” [10].
Not that slavery ever goes away completely [11].
Misogyny
The states in question might love the constitution, but they just hate women more than they love American values.
This is not out of nowhere, they actually treat single mothers worse than states which do not force women into being single mothers [11].
Involuntary Servitude
- “Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another. The term is sometimes equated with slavery, however, it does not necessarily imply the complete lack of personal freedom that accompanies slavery” [8].-US Legal, Inc.
Pregnancy is hard work and sacrifice [9]. To be coerced into continuing it against one's wishes, is making treating said person as a piece of property (AKA, a slave), rather than as a person.
Without even addressing how much women are punished in the USA for not getting an abortion (which can coerce them into getting an abortion they otherwise might not), being coerced to work for another is by definition involuntary servitude.
A pregnant woman being told she may not get an abortion or else go to prison the rest of her life, is coercing her. Continuing the pregnancy is hard work, so hard in fact that it tends to interfere with employment.
Does the government reimburse her?
- If yes, then she’s an indentured servant
- If not, then she’s a slave
Since both are anti-constitutional per the 13th Amendment, women have a constitutional right to abort unwanted pregnancies.
Sources:
- https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alliance-defending-freedom-dobbs/
- https://www.wired.com/2012/08/house-committee-science/
- https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment
- https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-heres-how-lawmakers-voted-heartbeat-bill-legislature/5706081001/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/13th-amendment
- https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/involuntary-servitude/
- https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23203923/pregnancy-health-dobbs-supreme-court-abortion-roe-maternal-mortality
- https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/peonage/
- https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con made some interesting points and I think they made a fantastic job at making a persuasive argument. However, there also quite a few flaws in it as well.
First Rebuttal: The first issue I take with Con's argument is the accusation that the Supreme Court members are "misogynistic cultists" and the claim that "we don't share a common language with them." It is important to remember, regardless of personal views about the current Supreme Court justices, that they are the sitting members of the Judicial branch. Their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade means that the right to an abortion is not protected by the Federal government or the Constitution. Asserting that the ruling was made by men in a "coop" is a subjective opinion, not one grounded in fact or law.
Second, they outright did so under insane pretext. Their case distilled down to some rights are “not deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition” so are not rights [3]. This leaves zero reason why this anti-ethical framework would not be applied to every other constitutional amendment, since at the time of their inception they too were “not deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition.”Plus, abortion is well rooted in American history and tradition, making that case against it invalid from the onset. From about 1607 all the way to 1860 (just over 250 years), it was commonly practiced and legal until the quickening (just under half way through pregnancy). A racist and sexist group petitioned politicians with lies about science to change that (notice a trend?), not for any religious reason like the cults we see today, but literally as a business tactic against traditional medicine [3].
This argument is a fallacy. Firstly, America was not a country in 1607 to 1860. America did not become independent until 1783 and would not adopt the Constitution until 10 years later in 1789. Con needs to know the difference between British Colonial rule and the establishment of the Federal government. So, saying that abortion was allowed freely for 250 years is not true. Furthermore, the earliest Anti-abortion laws in America were established as early as 1821 when the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law banning medical abortions. Indeed, there have been numerous anti-abortion laws throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Thus, when my opponent asserts that abortion is deeply entrenched in American history and tradition, he may be correct in acknowledging that the debate has continued over these periods. However, he is mistaken in claiming that abortion has been a universally accepted practice for 250 years or that it is consistent with traditional medical practice.
Second rebuttal:
Yes and no. The author of the 9th amendment set it as a catchall for rights not previously named or respected [4]. As an example (not sure if Madison would agree), slavery is evil, and goes against all American values… This didn’t magically become the case when the 13th amendment was ratified.
I fail to see how the 9th Amendment having any relevance to the opinion of slavery being evil or against American values. The point of ratifying the 13th Amendment was to make slavery a crime. A person's personal opinion on slavery did not matter.
Because the 9th exists, the denial of rights (even if not expressly named in the constitution) is anti-constitutional.
That's incorrect. As you've acknowledged, Constitutional issues regarding rights not explicitly mentioned are addressed through case law. This means that if someone claims a right not enumerated in the US Constitution, it must be adjudicated by the judiciary based on the case's specifics, thereby granting the Supreme Court the authority to accept or reject such cases. Denying a proclaimed right not mentioned in the Constitution is therefore not unconstitutional.
Abortion is a longstanding tradition/custom of the people [3], so by this standard, a right.
The argument is founded on a false premise, as it assumes that America has accepted the practice of abortion for 250 years, from the 17th to the 19th century. This assertion is refuted by the fact that America did not become a country until 1783, did not establish its current form of government until 1789, and started enacting anti-abortion laws as early as 1820. Just as you can say there are times where Abortion was accepted, I can give times where it was not accepted, and it still isn't accepted today.
3rd Rebuttal:
But specifically to the 10th amendment…Where does it say that anyone's body is property of the government, to serve as a slave rather than have the government honor its promise to protect their liberties, as was enshrined from the very beginning?Yes, that is a point about the pitfalls of double standards and cherry picking.
Con is misconstruing the tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment establishes that powers not given to the Federal Government by the US Constitution are left to the states or the people. The Tenth Amendment is unrelated to slavery and supports my argument that abortion is a matter for the states to decide, not a constitutional right. This is neither cherry-picking nor a double standard.
Women equal ~50% of the population, so democratically… Oh wait, not only should anyone's rights not be up for the vote, but when women’s rights are put to the vote, the staggeringly vast majority of women do not get to take part. Such as Texas, declaring any raped woman who gets pregnant (not that they believe it’s rape if she gets pregnant) who doesn’t wish to carry the progeny of her rapist, she gets life in prison for the federal (not state) crime rebelling against the will of the rapist.
Con has not only not cited ANY law to support this claim but saying women do not get take part is false as women have had the right to vote since the passing of the 19th Amendment. Women CHOOSE not to participate which is not the same as not being able to. Secondly, the reason a woman might get life in prison for terminating a baby has nothing to do with whether she was raped or not. It has to do with the fact abortion is considered a felony in the state of Texas.
Furthermore, it is not a federal crime to get an abortion because the matter depends on the states. For example, Alaska, California, and many others have no such penalties that Texas has. If Abortion were a federal crime, then states would have no power to legislate what the punishment for abortion was or if it is illegal.
This of course was not put up for a vote by the people, but rather a weird cabal, who wear strange robes, and have secret meetings [5]. Yes, those groups have recently allowed a few women into their ranks, but only as a serious minority who can rarely affect an outcome (save for when the dicks are occasionally tied).
This is false. Every registered voter in the United States knows that they have the right to vote on state matters. We cannot vote in every instance granted, but on the state level people do vote. One of the very first things I did when I became a voter, was to vote against abolishing the death penalty in my state.
In a vacuum that might be fine, but unfortunately women live in those states. Again, the decision makers in such places do not think women are people, thus women’s rights is an alien concept.
This is a false argument. Firstly, women possess the same Constitutional rights as men. If this were not the case, I would challenge the opposition to identify a single right that men have under the Constitution that women do not. Moreover, if the opposition's assertion were accurate, how could women have the right to abortions, since, according to the opposition, the concept of women's rights is foreign to the government?
As an example, the anti-abortion advocates in their view that women are animals instead of people (and hatred thereof), forced the vast majority of black women to not terminate their pregnancies, which held from 1776 until 1865 [6].
Con appears to contradict themselves. Earlier, they stated that America accepted abortion as a standard medical practice from 1607 to 1865. However, Con now claims that anti-abortionists managed to prevent abortions from 1776 to 1865. So, which is it? Did America allow abortions to go unchallenged for 250 years as was your original claim or did Anti-abortionists have their way until 1865?
Rebuttal 4:
Thanks to ol’ Abe Lincoln, slavery is outlawed in the USA. Per the 13th Amendment:
Okay now lets look up the definition of slavery. " the condition of being legally owned by someone else, or the system in which some people are owned by others" Nothing to do with Abortion, which, "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" No relation to them whatsoever. Also, the 13th Amendment is not about abortion so pointing out its a federal law carried about by congress (which everyone already knows) isn't really noteworthy.
When the 13th was written, it was written with all the evils of the Atlantic Slave Trade fresh in mind. One of the most depraved forms of the slavery was forced pregnancy; and no exception to allow this to continue was put into the 13th. Rather, it outlawed ALL slavery.Completely non-coincidentally, the states with abortion bans are largely the states which tried to find loopholes in the 13th, such as sending former slaves to prison for not honoring impossible contracts, and then have them be a slave again… Oh sorry, as a further loophole they renamed slavery “peonage” [10].Not that slavery ever goes away completely [11].
I must correct you, Con, as your legal interpretation is incorrect. The definition of slavery does not mention pregnancy, and the 13th Amendment does not address it. Therefore, claiming that the 13th Amendment dictates that women cannot be forced to maintain their pregnancies is a fallacy. What you are trying to establish would be called Sexual slavery. Which is a condition where a person is owned by another person and being forced to work in the sex trade and partake in activities like prostitution and other sex industries. However, equating the denial of abortions to the act of denying personal freedoms is a false equivalence. Abortion is a contentious issue that revolves around the choice to terminate a developing fetus, rather than an issue of being subjugated and coerced into sexual activity.
Pregnancy is hard work and sacrifice [9]. To be coerced into continuing it against one's wishes, is making treating said person as a piece of property (AKA, a slave), rather than as a person.
Close but no cigar Con, I agree that giving birth is not easy, however, being told to continue it is not involuntary servitude or being treated as property. Firstly, you are not being forced to carry a child for the benefit of any particular person. Secondly, it's not being coerced when it is a matter of law because your personal opinion does not matter or change the outcome. Thirdly, states make laws denying abortion not on the basis on property, but the fact that killing a fetus is killing a life.
Without even addressing how much women are punished in the USA for not getting an abortion (which can coerce them into getting an abortion they otherwise might not), being coerced to work for another is by definition involuntary servitude.
There is no law that punishes women for choosing not to have an abortion. Certainly, there are complications associated with pregnancy that can affect quality of life, but these are not considered arbitrary punishments. Furthermore, the term "work for another" may be unclear, but if it refers to working during pregnancy, this does not constitute involuntary servitude, as women are compensated for their work just as men are. Involuntary servitude implies a lack of compensation for services rendered without choice.
A pregnant woman being told she may not get an abortion or else go to prison the rest of her life, is coercing her. Continuing the pregnancy is hard work, so hard in fact that it tends to interfere with employment.
Firstly, the risk of imprisonment for obtaining an abortion is specific to Texas, not the entire United States. Secondly, while pregnancy may be challenging, it is not considered employment. Thirdly, the difficulty of a woman's job during pregnancy is solely her concern.
Does the government reimburse her?
- If yes, then she’s an indentured servant
- If not, then she’s a slave
Since both are anti-constitutional per the 13th Amendment, women have a constitutional right to abort unwanted pregnancies.
Firstly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery.
Overall:
Con has committed several fallacies in their argument. They incorrectly claim that abortion has been a standard medical practice in the USA for 250 years. They contradict themselves by asserting that women have a constitutional right to abortion while also arguing that women's rights are disregarded by lawmakers. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th and 13th Amendments. Abortion is neither slavery nor has it always been an accepted practice. As Con acknowledges, it is not mentioned in the US Constitution and is therefore subject to case law, which currently delegates the matter to the states rather than the federal level. Con should also learn the different between the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery as a legal practice and the illegal practices of sex slavery as they are not related.
Thus, I maintain that women, indeed, do not possess a Constitutional right to abortion. I strongly urge my respected opponent to further examine the Constitution and the laws with greater scrutiny and to approach the matter from a neutral perspective rather than an emotional one. This is particularly pertinent given their admission of being passionate about the subject, which may have led to the mischaracterization of Supreme Court Justices as "misogynistic cults." Thank you for your attention, and I now yield the floor to the opposition.
Con
#4
To be clear, I only particularly care about the forth contention. That’s where I’ve laid my eggs; best not to ask about anything elsewhere which I’ve painted white.
1. Complete Absence in the Constitution itself (14th)
“A subjective opinion, not one grounded in fact or law.”
Actually I grounded it in facts, as seen with my sources. But since Pro believes I’m wrong about the Justices being religious, which I mistakenly thought was common knowledge, I’ll prove it… The senate outright asks about their imaginary friends during confirmation hearings [1], since to the cultists in the senate that’s what’s most important. None of the Justices identity as not having imaginary friends, which makes them non-representative for about a quarter of the US population.
Sadly, we know their goal due to what’s going on in the Middle East in the name of imaginary friends [2]. But with such stellar liars and rapists as Brett Kavanaugh appointed as a “Justice” [3, 4], this is hardly surprising.
Oh and former president Donald Trump just admitted to appointing Kavanaugh and others purely to overturn Roe v. Wade without care for constitutional validity [5]. This is also known as a coup (previously misspelled coop). More recently, for Mr. Trump’s benefit, they’ve declared presidents to be immune to punishment for any crimes they commit, such as attempting to assassinate his own vice president and leading an insertion to overthrow our democracy [14].
“Their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade means that the right to an abortion is not protected by the Federal government or the Constitution”
Incorrect. One clause of the 14th (not 13th) amendment was interpreted by Roe v. Wade in a manner to prevent sadists in the government from forcing abortions upon the unwilling (along with denying women the right to medical freedom, which hurt the feelings of misogynists).
Not currently being recognized as supported by one interpretation of one clause, says nothing about anything else throughout the rest of the constitution.
“America was not a country in 1607 to 1860”
I’ve seen worse examples of missing the point [6], but not many.
The USA did not fall out of a hole in the sky in 1776. Instead it has traditions which predate and lead to it declaring independence. Even ignoring everything which predates independence, that gives nearly a hundred years of traditional legal abortion (as previously stated, at least up until the quickening).
- “Prior to 1821, abortions were generally accessible and were often performed by midwives, as well as doctors. That changed as women’s reproductive rights in the United States became more contentious. A 1873 case established federal control over contraception distribution.”
-Pro’s own source, agreeing with me that abortion is an American tradition.
“the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law banning medical abortions.”
*Facepalm*[7]
- “The Connecticut General Assembly passes the first U.S. law banning medicinal abortion after the “quickening” stage (when fetal movement is detected, generally around the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy).”-Pro’s own source agreeing with me about abortion being legal until the quickening.
Bringing up that I’m right, does not advance your case.
This is why you shouldn’t source spam.
2. People Cannot Make Up Their Own Rights (9th)
“I fail to see how the 9th Amendment having any relevance to the opinion of slavery being evil or against American values.”
If you believe slavery is not evil and is in fact an American value, I have no clue what to say… Congregations, you’ve stumped me.
“...did not establish its current form of government until 1789”
See contention 1 rebuttals.
3. Abortion is Left to the States, Not the Constitution (10th)
To repeat myself:
Where does it say that anyone's body is property of the government, to serve as a slave rather than have the government honor its promise to protect their liberties, as was enshrined from the very beginning?
If it doesn’t say that, nor that misogynists get to use the declaration of independence as toilet paper, then the 10th Amendment has almost no bearing on this discussion.
“women have had the right to vote since the passing of the 19th Amendment.”
Then women not getting to vote on abortion (which I’ve proven), makes them being denied the right to do something that could not vote on a constitutional violation. Congratulations, you’ve managed to find an additional way they have a right to abortion through the 19th.
“This is false”
Disagreeing with me on if those cultists wear strange robes… This is the easiest thing to prove given that they openly admit to the practice:
- “Since at least 1800, it has been traditional for Justices to wear black robes”-Supreme Court of the United States [8]
And this goes way back to about 1800, long before they had photographs, but one from 1953 shows them all adored in those matching robes, plus all very white, very old, and very male [9]. It’s also worth noting that the position has no such dress code.
“Every registered voter in the United States knows that they have the right to vote on state matters.”
Already addressed: The vast majority of women are denied such rights when it comes to abortion [10] (repeated source).
“women possess the same Constitutional rights as men”
You’re figuratively stepping on your own rakes here [11], some number of them between 18 and 20… Please remind us what number is between 18 and 20? Right, 19, as in the 19th amendment…
The 19th Amendment was only required because the predecessors to the misogynistic cultists I’ve been mentioning, decided to intentionally deny women their constitutional rights. The wording of it speaks directly of rights which already existed, but were being dishonored by evil people in power (generations of them in fact).
- “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” [12].
That they had to single out states for choosing to be anti-constitutional against women, in the 20th century, is quite telling.
That the 19th amendment was needed was a bigger embarrassment than the 15th, which both covered the same thing: people are people, people may take part in democracy, and people have their rights protected by the constitution. In fact, nowhere in the declaration of independence, the constitution, or the amendments was an exception made to oppress people by melanin and dick length; nor did they even adhere to this standard when it inconvenienced them (with not even one senator ever losing his vote for getting tanned or losing his dick… as one does when engaging in certain esoteric lifestyles).
“Con now claims that anti-abortionists managed to prevent abortions from 1776 to 1865. So, which is it?”
It actually hurts me to have to break things down Barney Style to this extent.
On your mouse there’s something called a scroll wheel, which will enable you to scroll up to the crystal clear answer above, if the wheel is too complex there are up and down keyboard buttons which will give the same effect [13].
Now that you know how to scroll, scroll up to look for the text in question, and note where it says “anti-abortion advocates in their view that women are animals…” If this is still confusing, try to imagine that just like not all men are rapists, not all people hate women. Ones who do hate women, gained more power in the south than elsewhere, and “forced the vast majority of black women to not terminate their pregnancies.”
Not all women are black. I treat this to be an apriori fact which need not be proven.
One group of women suffering worse violations of their rights than others in a time period, does not mean only one thing was happening.
4. Slavery is Evil (13th)
“No relation to them whatsoever”
Actually the 13th doesn’t have a clause that sickos are allowed to enslave people for 9 months. Making someone a slave for 9 months, is making them a slave.
This shouldn’t need to be said, but I take it to be self evident that enslaving their bodies (or parts thereof) is also enslaving them.
“What you are trying to establish would be called Sexual slavery”
Actually the 13th doesn’t have a clause that sickos are allowed to enslave people so long a they make sure to rape them good.
It is crystal clear against slavery. Kidnapping people to enslave them in your basement is a constitutional violation, as is making them pick cotton in your field (yes, even if you rape them good every night), etc.
Again, the 13th is crystal clear against slavery, with no separation of different types of slavery (and I’ve already covered that loopholes were ruled still unconstitutional); instead all forms of it are violations of constitutional rights, which in turn means people have a right to any action to free themselves from slavery to prevent it from existing:
- “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”
Similarly, the 2nd amendment allows people to purchase a 9mm pistol, and/or an M16 rifle, or almost any other. That multiple types of arms they may purchase exist, does not invalidate all the others.
“The definition of slavery does not mention pregnancy”
Nor does it mention whipping them in a field. It doesn’t need to, because it includes both things (and many others) when they’re unwilling.
“the 13th Amendment does not address it”
The… 13th… amendment… addresses… ALL slavery.
In order to challenge that, you’d need to either show that all pregnancy is voluntary, or pregnancy is zero burden. Until then, forced pregnancy is by your own provided definition a form of slavery as women become owned by another for 9 months.
“Firstly, you are not being forced to carry a child for the benefit of any particular person”
Slavery doesn’t need to be for any one lone person, the definition says “owned by others.” This stuff is intuitively simple. A plantation owned by a corporation still enslaved even while it wasn’t one lone individual benefiting. Hell, Brett Kavanaugh and his mentor Todd Akin could both kidnap and rape someone, and both being guilty wouldn’t magically cancel out the crime.
A woman being forced to stay pregnant is for the benefit of a bunch of prevented sadists (such as Brett Kavanaugh and Todd Akin). Hypothetically the fetus too, but that’s secondary at best to the perverse desires of the anti-democratic lawmakers.
“Secondly, it's not being coerced when it is a matter of law”
The law can coerce. As it did during the Atlantic Slave Trade. They were still slaves, in spite of the law being in favor of them being slaves.
“Thirdly, states make laws denying abortion not on the basis on property, but the fact that killing a fetus is killing a life.”
Right, I might go mighty hungry in winter if my slaves were set free, so hungry in fact that I just might die. I guess the 13th Amendment has a special clause for me to keep slaves if I really want to? …. Oh wait no, the 13th Amendment freed the slaves, it didn’t have any clauses to allow it to continue to the convenience of the masters.
Further, if a slave was pregnant, it didn’t say she had to keep serving the wishes of her former master; that would literally be her continuing to be a slave (by your own definition).
“the term "work for another" may be unclear, but if it refers to working during pregnancy, this does not constitute involuntary servitude”
“women are compensated for their work just as men are”
Note quite. There’s the gender wage gap, but also a motherhood penalty on wages [17]. However, this is drifting off topic.
“Involuntary servitude implies a lack of compensation for services rendered without choice.”
That sounds like a slave, but these two terms are synonymous. But how does that not describe the average unwilling pregnant woman?
“Texas, not the entire United States”
Texas is part of the USA. If constitutional rights are violated by the government in any one state, they are violated in the USA.
To even need to try to push against naming the worst state, says a lot.
“pregnancy may be challenging, it is not considered employment”
Do you think slaves back during the Atlantic Slave Trade had 401Ks, vacation time, etc?
Are you about to argue that those weren’t really slaves because they didn’t have respectable jobs they were paid for? The civil war must have freed no one at all…
“They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion”
Breaking chains owned by another is a crime under normal circumstances, but when those chains are forcing someone to be a slave (put in work to benefit another without pay, etc.), they have a right to break them to be free.
5. Declaration of Independence
A founding principle of this nation is the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. This informed the declaration of independence, our constitution, and various other documents. It’s even reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment.
The government may not kill us, deprive our liberty, nor interfere with our property.
To each of us, before any other accumulation of goods, our bodies are our own property.
Overview
The matter is simple (slavery and indentured servant are used interchangeably):
- Slavery violates the 13th amendment (plus the declaration of independence and a few other key documents).
- A person has a constitutional right to not be a slave (as is needed to uphold the 13th).
- A person therefore has a constitutional right to take actions to prevent enslavement and/or to free themselves from slavery.
- Forced pregnancy meets the above, and the means of preventing/ending that one type of enslavement is abortion.
- Oh, and women are people.
Pro is of course welcome to come up with another way for those women to free themselves from the slavery that is forced pregnancy. Then denied abortions would not be a violation of their rights; but right now, abortion is the way to prevent/end slavery.
Sources:
- https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/391649/religion-supreme-court-justices.aspx
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/06/taliban-and-global-backlash-against-womens-rights
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g86Yyi-YlOM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpYgDTimaKs
- https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-06-27/trump-biden-abortion-presidential-debate
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
- https://youtu.be/wjLgekyOZA0?si=7CFQs_JcCqG7sbiM&t=42
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/traditions.aspx
- https://writingpis.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/why-do-u-s-judges-wear-black-robes-by-denver-defense-attorney-shaun-kaufman/
- https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-heres-how-lawmakers-voted-heartbeat-bill-legislature/5706081001/
- https://youtu.be/aRq1Ksh-32g?si=PJk0yshdNSEZ0UGx
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/19th-amendment
- https://youtu.be/TgZZTuwB7cw?si=Hl8u9wrJkk5c7_Ok
- https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/07/02/high-court-ruling-on-presidential-immunity-threatens-the-rule-of-law-scholars-warn/
- https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthu/2019/05/24/6-realities-of-pregnancy-people-rarely-talk-about
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/broken-tired-and-ashamed-how-health-care-fails-new-moms
- https://www.aauw.org/issues/equity/motherhood/
Round 3
Pro
#5
Actually I grounded it in facts, as seen with my sources. But since Pro believes I’m wrong about the Justices being religious, which I mistakenly thought was common knowledge, I’ll prove it… The senate outright asks about their imaginary friends during confirmation hearings [1], since to the cultists in the senate that’s what’s most important. None of the Justices identity as not having imaginary friends, which makes them non-representative for about a quarter of the US population.
Con is committing another fallacy. As mentioned in the second round, the personal opinions of elected officials do not pertain to the issue of women's rights to abortion. Furthermore, the source you cited to claim that the senate inquires about "imaginary friends" is a subjective article by Frank Newport, an analyst. To substantiate your argument, which is ultimately irrelevant, you should refer to official legal documents rather than the subjective opinions of an analyst.
Oh and former president Donald Trump just admitted to appointing Kavanaugh and others purely to overturn Roe v. Wade without care for constitutional validity [5]. This is also known as a coup (previously misspelled coop). More recently, for Mr. Trump’s benefit, they’ve declared presidents to be immune to punishment for any crimes they commit, such as attempting to assassinate his own vice president and leading an insertion to overthrow our democracy [14].
Firstly, Donald Trump is not widely recognized for his integrity. In fact, he is considered one of the most dishonest politicians in America. Therefore, I would not recommend using him as a source of information. Secondly, your source for that argument is based on a subjective news network rather than an official document or government website. Thirdly, you are misrepresenting the court's ruling. The courts did not grant the president immunity from all crimes. The ruling actually states that the president is immune to criminal prosecution only when he is acting within the limits of his constitutional powers. It does not grant him total immunity nor does it mean he can assassinate his political rivals or overthrow democracy. Its also important note that this argument is once again irrelevant.
Incorrect. One clause of the 14th (not 13th) amendment was interpreted by Roe v. Wade in a manner to prevent sadists in the government from forcing abortions upon the unwilling (along with denying women the right to medical freedom, which hurt the feelings of misogynists).
You have not cited a source for your argument. Conversely, I have noted that abortion is not mentioned. Additionally, you conceded that when a right is unmentioned, it falls under case law. This principle underpinned the establishment of Roe v. Wade and, ultimately, its overturning. Additionally, there is a contradiction in your statements. In Round 2, you mentioned, "Again, the decision makers in such places do not view women as people, hence the concept of women’s rights is foreign to them." Yet now, you assert that these same individuals, whom you referred to as a "cabal of misogynist cultists," are enacting laws to safeguard women's alleged abortion rights. You also stated that abortion was legally practiced for the first 250 years, while simultaneously asserting that anti-abortionists prevailed until 1865.
The point Con is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You need to stick to one story and stay consistent. Has abortion been legal for the first 250 years prior to Roe V. wade? Did anti-abortionists prevent women from terminating childbirth till 1865? Are lawmakers a cabal of misogynists who don't understand the concept of women's rights? Or are lawmakers sympathetic to women's rights and thus have established abortion is a right in the Constitution? Choose one and stick with it, because you have made ALL of these arguments at this point.
The USA did not fall out of a hole in the sky in 1776. Instead it has traditions which predate and lead to it declaring independence. Even ignoring everything which predates independence, that gives nearly a hundred years of traditional legal abortion (as previously stated, at least up until the quickening).
No one is claiming that the USA "fell out of the sky." My point is that your original claim stated that abortion was a legal practice from 1607 to 1865. I refuted this by noting that America was not established as a country until 1776 and that laws against abortion were enacted as early as 1820. It's also important to note that you, yourself, contradicted this narrative by later asserting that anti-abortionists prevented abortions until 1865.
- “Prior to 1821, abortions were generally accessible and were often performed by midwives, as well as doctors. That changed as women’s reproductive rights in the United States became more contentious. A 1873 case established federal control over contraception distribution.”
-Pro’s own source, agreeing with me that abortion is an American tradition.
Incorrect. My source contradicts your statement, which claimed, "From about 1607 to 1860 (just over 250 years), it was widely practiced and legal until the quickening (just under halfway through pregnancy)." Therefore, you may have either overlooked my source or are misremembering your arguments. My source disputes the notion that abortion was an American tradition for 250 years, demonstrating that challenges to abortion emerged as early as the 1820s.
If you believe slavery is not evil and is in fact an American value, I have no clue what to say… Congregations, you’ve stumped me.
I find myself equally perplexed because it seems you are implying that I condone slavery simply because I stated that individuals cannot invoke the 9th Amendment to fabricate their own rights. This is a fact you concurred with and noted yourself that such issues are determined by case law.
Where does it say that anyone's body is property of the government, to serve as a slave rather than have the government honor its promise to protect their liberties, as was enshrined from the very beginning?
Then I shall reiterate as well. Where does the 10th Amendment, a document that primarily distinguishes between state and federal law, mention slavery or abortion in general? If you cannot answer that, then to reiterate a point you cannot substantiate is futile.
If it doesn’t say that, nor that misogynists get to use the declaration of independence as toilet paper, then the 10th Amendment has almost no bearing on this discussion.
I agree, which is why I pointed out that you are misrepresenting the Constitution. Thank you for conceding that point.
Then women not getting to vote on abortion (which I’ve proven), makes them being denied the right to do something that could not vote on a constitutional violation. Congratulations, you’ve managed to find an additional way they have a right to abortion through the 19th.
Firstly, you have not demonstrated that women are unable to vote on abortion issues. I have countered this by highlighting the absence of legal sources to support the claim that women are disenfranchised. Secondly, the fact that women can vote, as established by the 19th Amendment, does not equate to a right to abortion. Your argument suggests that because women can vote, and since they do not vote on constitutional laws (neither do men), they are somehow entitled to abortion rights through the 19th Amendment. This logic is flawed. I would seriously suggest arguing with logic rather than emotional Con. Because women having the right to vote, and women having the right to abortion are too entirely different subjects. The only connection is that women could, if they wished, vote in their state for the right to abortion. However, this would actually support my argument, as it implies, they can only do so within their state, rather than having abortion as a universal right.
You’re figuratively stepping on your own rakes here [11], some number of them between 18 and 20… Please remind us what number is between 18 and 20? Right, 19, as in the 19th amendment…The 19th Amendment was only required because the predecessors to the misogynistic cultists I’ve been mentioning, decided to intentionally deny women their constitutional rights. The wording of it speaks directly of rights which already existed, but were being dishonored by evil people in power (generations of them in fact).
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Initially, you stated that by mentioning the 19th Amendment and challenging the notion that women couldn't vote on abortion issues, it implies they have a right to abortion through the 19th Amendment. Now, you're suggesting that the 19th Amendment is being utilized to restrict women's rights. How does that reconcile? I ask you again to stick to one story. Your argument is that women can vote through the 19th Amendment, which they means they somehow have a right to abortion. (which I have already debunked). All you're saying that the 19th Amendment actually restricts women's rights and thus nullifies your previous argument. It cannot be both.
That the 19th amendment was needed was a bigger embarrassment than the 15th, which both covered the same thing: people are people, people may take part in democracy, and people have their rights protected by the constitution. In fact, nowhere in the declaration of independence, the constitution, or the amendments was an exception made to oppress people by melanin and dick length; nor did they even adhere to this standard when it inconvenienced them (with not even one senator ever losing his vote for getting tanned or losing his dick… as one does when engaging in certain esoteric lifestyles).
At this point con you are just making felonious arguments through vulgarity. The 15th Amendment is to establish to actually say what you incorrectly quoted for the 19th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– The 19th Amendment states. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. I will grant you that they sound similar but they are different. Secondly you are essentially calling the 19th and 15th Amendments "Embarrassments" despite the fact that they gave women and all races the rights. That is beyond uneducated.
It actually hurts me to have to break things down Barney Style to this extent.On your mouse there’s something called a scroll wheel, which will enable you to scroll up to the crystal clear answer above, if the wheel is too complex there are up and down keyboard buttons which will give the same effect [13].Now that you know how to scroll, scroll up to look for the text in question, and note where it says “anti-abortion advocates in their view that women are animals…” If this is still confusing, try to imagine that just like not all men are rapists, not all people hate women. Ones who do hate women, gained more power in the south than elsewhere, and “forced the vast majority of black women to not terminate their pregnancies.”Not all women are black. I treat this to be an apriori fact which need not be proven.One group of women suffering worse violations of their rights than others in a time period, does not mean only one thing was happening.
Con, there's no escaping this contradiction. You initially claimed, "Abortion is deeply entrenched in American history and tradition, rendering any argument against it baseless from the start. From around 1607 to 1860 (over 250 years), it was widely practiced and legal until the quickening (just before halfway through pregnancy)." Yet, you later stated, "For instance, anti-abortion proponents, in their belief that women are less than human, coerced the vast majority of black women into continuing their pregnancies from 1776 to 1865 [6]." Thus, the contradiction is clear. You must either adhere to your assertion that abortion was permitted for 250 years without opposition, or you maintain that abortion faced challenges from 1776 to 1865. The type of women being referred to does not alter this contradiction.
Actually the 13th doesn’t have a clause that sickos are allowed to enslave people for 9 months. Making someone a slave for 9 months, is making them a slave.This shouldn’t need to be said, but I take it to be self evident that enslaving their bodies (or parts thereof) is also enslaving them.
I must correct you; that interpretation is legally inaccurate. The 13th Amendment declares the institution of slavery illegal. Crafting subjective definitions to support a misinterpretation does not constitute a solid argument. One must demonstrate that the 13th Amendment explicitly defines slavery as the enslavement of the body and indeed references it. Without such evidence, the 13th Amendment is not applicable.
Actually the 13th doesn’t have a clause that sickos are allowed to enslave people so long a they make sure to rape them good.It is crystal clear against slavery. Kidnapping people to enslave them in your basement is a constitutional violation, as is making them pick cotton in your field (yes, even if you rape them good every night), etc.
Completely missed my point. You trying to argue? What would legally be considered sexual slavery as the same thing as the 13th Amendment. That is incorrect sexual. slavery is a completely different topic from slavery as a legal institution, which is what the 13th Amendment is about. Additionally, kidnapping people is there a separate charge from enslavement. read the 13th Amendment U.S. Constitution - Thirteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress And tell me where it mentions kidnapping and how kidnapping is supposed to somehow be the same crime as enslavement. Kidnapping Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal
Again, the 13th is crystal clear against slavery, with no separation of different types of slavery (and I’ve already covered that loopholes were ruled still unconstitutional); instead all forms of it are violations of constitutional rights, which in turn means people have a right to any action to free themselves from slavery to prevent it from existing:
This is incorrect. Firstly, the 13th Amendment explicitly prohibits slavery and is indeed referring to it as an institution. Sexual slavery, while illegal, is not classified as an institution and therefore does not come under the 13th Amendment. Moreover, the amendment states that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude can occur unless as a punishment for a crime, for which there must be a conviction. If sexual slavery were encompassed, it would imply that sexual slavery could be legal as an official punishment, which it is not, thereby invalidating your argument.
Secondly, while the 2nd Amendment may guarantee the right to bear arms, it is ultimately the states' prerogative to determine how and what types of guns are legal. Therefore, dismissing this fact renders it an irrelevant comparison.
Nor does it mention whipping them in a field. It doesn’t need to, because it includes both things (and many others) when they’re unwilling.
That's a nice try in logic there. But unfortunately, it doesn't work. The legal definition of sexual slavery in the legal definition of slavery as an institution, aka the 13th Amendment, do not coexist. If it were, then no one would be charged for a sex crime under sexual slavery. They would only be charged for slavery. because there would be no reason to charge someone for sexual slavery if slavery is only under one category.
In order to challenge that, you’d need to either show that all pregnancy is voluntary, or pregnancy is zero burden. Until then, forced pregnancy is by your own provided definition a form of slavery as women become owned by another for 9 months.
Actually, I am not required to do either, as pregnancy has not been legally defined as a form of slavery. Involuntary impregnation is classified as rape, not slavery. Moreover, the definition I provided does not generally qualify as slavery. Specifically, when referring to sexual slavery, it involves being forced into sexual acts, which can encompass a broad range of actions. Therefore, I would appreciate adherence to the definitions I have provided, rather than applying subjective interpretations to them.
Slavery doesn’t need to be for any one lone person, the definition says “owned by others.” This stuff is intuitively simple. A plantation owned by a corporation still enslaved even while it wasn’t one lone individual benefiting. Hell, Brett Kavanaugh and his mentor Todd Akin could both kidnap and rape someone, and both being guilty wouldn’t magically cancel out the crime.
Nice cherry picking, but that's actually not what slavery is defined. The definition is the state of a person who is forced usually under threat of violence to labor for the profit of another The rest of the statement doesn't make any sense. Thus, I will ignore it.
A woman being forced to stay pregnant is for the benefit of a bunch of prevented sadists (such as Brett Kavanaugh and Todd Akin). Hypothetically the fetus too, but that’s secondary at best to the perverse desires of the anti-democratic lawmakers.
Are these the same lawmakers who were involved in the Roe versus Wade decision based on women's rights? Are they the ones who granted women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment, which you referred to as an embarrassment? It seems there's an attempt to depict lawmakers as both anti-democratic and against women's rights, while also arguing that they uphold these principles, especially when discussing the right to abortion.
A founding principle of this nation is the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. This informed the declaration of independence, our constitution, and various other documents. It’s even reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment.
Ignoring the fact that you're trying to misrepresent the Declaration of Independence. or the fact that the Declaration of Independence is a separate document written in 1776. which has no legal bearing to the constitution, which was established in 1789 after removing the articles of Confederation. The 14th Amendment does not establish abortion as a right. Additionally, it does not say that you necessarily have a right to life, liberty or property. It only states that no State shall any deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The keyword there is without due process. Which means you do not have a right to life, liberty your personal property. But rather, they cannot be taken without a reason.
Conclusion:
Con has yet to prove that women possess a right to abortion. Con has merely ignored the evidence I presented, contradicted themselves, misinterpreted my points, and acted unprofessionally. Their reasoning is flawed, urging us to accept conspiracy theories backed by propaganda instead of scholarly research. Moreover, they portray lawmakers as misogynistic groups while paradoxically claiming that these same groups, which supposedly oppose women's rights, have legally recognized women's right to abortion through the 19th Amendment—a measure they deem shameful. Additionally, Con seems to forget their own arguments, mistakenly asserting that one of my sources endorses their stance, even though it actually contradicts Con's original claims.
Con may have you believe that they have checkmated me on the topic of slavery. However, I encourage you to review Round Two, where I distinctly delineated the difference between sexual slavery and institutional slavery. Additionally, I have repeatedly highlighted the contradictions in Con's arguments, which persist in this round. I implore voters to concentrate on the logic and factual aspects rather than the emotional arguments presented by my respected opponent.
In a legal debate, our focus should be precisely on that. The opposition has failed to do so; instead, Con has resorted to making false arguments based on legal misinterpretations and selective reasoning. Meanwhile, I have maintained consistency. and established through law and in the roundabout way con has admitted to some degree that the Constitution does not support the right for women to have a right to terminate childbirth.
The debate focuses on the legal right of women to have abortions. Arguments against Donald Trump and accusations of a misogynistic political culture are not pertinent to this issue. The 9th Amendment does not permit the creation of rights at whim. Additionally, issues not covered by the U.S. Constitution are subject to case law. Since the Constitution does not mention abortion, it falls under case law. The Supreme Court has reversed its earlier decision, confirming that abortion is a matter for the states rather than the federal government. Thus, irrespective of any irrelevant arguments made by Con if there is no legal foundation for a constitutional right to abortion, one must reject the inaccuracies being presented by Cons side and vote Pro.
The final point I wish to make highlights a significant contradiction in Con's statements. Recall that Con conceded there is no explicit right to abortion in the Constitution and initially claimed this subjects it to case law—a point I agree with, as it underpins my argument given Roe v. Wade was overturned for this very reason. Yet, Con contradicts themselves by suggesting that the 13th, 14th, and now 19th Amendments implicitly grant this right, despite no such mention in the laws. Furthermore, Con expects us to believe that misogynistic cultists run our government, who have paradoxically permitted abortion for 250 years while also allegedly treating women as subhuman and denying them abortions until 1865. Con would have you believe that America is under the sway of malevolent cultists who view women as lesser beings without rights yet have allowed them to undergo abortions as a tradition for over two and a half centuries.
Con cannot simultaneously retain and consume his cake. If his allegations of misogyny cultists are unfounded, as evidenced by his argument that women possess a constitutional right supported by the government for over 250 years, then he has yet to substantiate abortion as a constitutional right, acknowledging instead that it is governed by case law. Conversely, if his assertions are accurate, he cannot assert that abortion has been an unchallenged constitutional right for two centuries, given that lawmakers have neither accepted nor comprehended women's rights. Whichever position he adopts, Con has not demonstrated that women possess a constitutional right to abortion.
Con
#6
This feels less like a debate, and more like the Monty Python sketch of contradiction and complaints instead of arguments [1].
1. Complete Absence in the Constitution itself (14th)
“Personal opinions of elected officials do not pertain to the issue”
The supreme court justices have been proven to vote down Roe v Wade as part of an anti-constitutional coup. Since they vote based on their personal opinions, those opinions very much pertain to the issues.
“is a subjective article by Frank Newport, an analyst”
Oh no, I went to a professional analyst who is informed on the issues…. The horror, the horror.
“ultimately irrelevant”
Since they’re trying to use the law to force their insane religious beliefs on everyone, and much of your argument centers on how they are right to do so (your choice to bring Roe v Wade into this), it is quite relevant.
“you should refer to official legal documents rather than the subjective opinions of an analyst.”
Slavery occurs outside of legal documents. But you’re welcome to watch the hearing in question yourself, and see if Sen. Lindsey Graham asked religious questions or not [2] (he comes on about an hour and a half in). These questions further verify the corruption to which I’ve spoken.
“Donald Trump is not widely recognized for his integrity … I would not recommend using him as a source”
We’re literally talking about the guy who appointed three of the “justices,” to include one with a history of sexual violence against women and perjury … But you know, you’re right, we’ll just look at this matter without citing Trump’s handiwork, we discount Trump as president and all therein, including his three supreme court justices, bringing the vote on Roe v. Wade from 5/4, down to 2/4 [3], overwhelmingly in favor of upholding women's constitutional rights.
“news network rather than an official document”
That’s just a fallacious appeal to authority.
“It does not grant him total immunity nor does it mean he can assassinate his political rivals or overthrow democracy.”
You sweet summer child, you've never heard of the January 6 U.S. Capital Attack [4]…
“You have not cited a source for your argument”
And?
“I have noted that abortion is not mentioned”
See R1: “1. Complete Absence in the Constitution itself (14th)”
“you conceded that when a right is unmentioned, it falls under case law”
A rather blatant lie. Anyone can verify with Ctrl+F, then type in “case law” for which I only used that phrase inside a definition.
“You also stated that abortion was legally practiced for the first 250 years, while simultaneously asserting that anti-abortionists prevailed until 1865.”
As already stated:
“Con now claims that anti-abortionists managed to prevent abortions from 1776 to 1865. So, which is it?”It actually hurts me to have to break things down Barney Style to this extent.On your mouse there’s something called a scroll wheel, which will enable you to scroll up to the crystal clear answer above, if the wheel is too complex there are up and down keyboard buttons which will give the same effect [13].Now that you know how to scroll, scroll up to look for the text in question, and note where it says “anti-abortion advocates in their view that women are animals…” If this is still confusing, try to imagine that just like not all men are rapists, not all people hate women. Ones who do hate women, gained more power in the south than elsewhere, and “forced the vast majority of black women to not terminate their pregnancies.”Not all women are black. I treat this to be an apriori fact which need not be proven.One group of women suffering worse violations of their rights than others in a time period, does not mean only one thing was happening.
“asserting that anti-abortionists prevented abortions until 1865.”
See above… And let’s see, this denial that slaves ever existed in the USA repeats a bunch of times, so on each: see the above.
“Incorrect. My source contradicts your statement”
The sources agree with each other on the quickening, even citing the same year. Therefore your source to prove me wrong about it, just verifies that I’m right.
2. People Cannot Make Up Their Own Rights (9th)
“implying that I condone slavery”
Have you looked at what you’ve said? You spoke directly against that mere opinion that slavery is evil and against American values. Yes, I get your side of this debate calls for you being pro-enslaving women, but then you get into your strange denial of African Americans having been mistreated during the slave trade (you’ve hammered that one in like a half dozen times now, thinking that saying that means somehow you win).
3. Abortion is Left to the States, Not the Constitution (10th)
Pro could find nowhere in the 10th which mentioned any allowance for the government to enslave people for its pleasures, nor any general rejection of the declaration of independence and founding principles.
As for pro’s request: See the 13th Amendment.
“you have not demonstrated that women are unable to vote on abortion issues”
Yes I have, as previously written:
Women equal ~50% of the population, so democratically… Oh wait, not only should anyone's rights not be up for the vote, but when women’s rights are put to the vote, the staggeringly vast majority of women do not get to take part. Such as Texas, declaring any raped woman who gets pregnant (not that they believe it’s rape if she gets pregnant) who doesn’t wish to carry the progeny of her rapist, she gets life in prison for the federal (not state) crime rebelling against the will of the rapist. This of course was not put up for a vote by the people, but rather a weird cabal, who wear strange robes, and have secret meetings [5]. Yes, those groups have recently allowed a few women into their ranks, but only as a serious minority who can rarely affect an outcome (save for when the dicks are occasionally tied).
“the fact that women can vote, as established by the 19th Amendment”
And as I’ve already covered, when it comes to their own bodies, they’re almost entirely excluded from the votes. It’s a double betrayal of their rights as citizens, and goes back to my earlier points about the anti-constitutional dicks who have largely taken over.
“19th Amendment is being utilized to restrict women's rights”
Not at all what I said. This shouldn’t be rocket science… The 19th Amendment never should have been necessary, because women are people and therefore always should have had their voting rights respected. Even with it in place, it is not always honored. Both are due to the evil misogynists in power. And to cut ahead to the obvious reply, no, the same cause for two related things is not a contradiction (I’ve seen that basic claim way too many times in this debate).
“you are just making felonious arguments through vulgarity.”
If true, name one senator who lost his right to vote due to a tan or becoming a eunuch? The right to vote was thought to be tied to those things (skin pigment, and length down there), and yet when it came to old white dudes it was not enforced; rather it was solely enforced as a power dynamic to oppress people.
“you are essentially calling the 19th and 15th Amendments "Embarrassments" despite the fact that they gave women and all races the rights. That is beyond uneducated.”
That you cannot understand why people's rights should always have been recognized, and you randomly insult anyone who does, is quite telling.
“there's no escaping this contradiction”
This was seriously in reply to:
Not all women are black. I treat this to be an apriori fact which need not be proven.One group of women suffering worse violations of their rights than others in a time period, does not mean only one thing was happening.
Either he believes ALL women are black, or he thinks it’s impossible for different people to be treated differently from each other (or possibly both?). Obviously not all people, nor even groups of people, are treated homogeneously to each other.
It is self evidence that people are treated unequally. On aggregate blacks are treated worse than whites; women are treated worse than men; the young are treated worse than the old; etcetera.
“The type of women being referred to does not alter this contradiction.”
Yup, he thanks all women are black.
4. Slavery is Evil (13th)
“One must demonstrate that the 13th Amendment explicitly defines slavery as the enslavement of the body and indeed references it.”
*facepalm*
You can declare that African Americans are lying about what was done to their ancestors all you want, thankfully we speak the same language as congress of the time, have access to dictionaries, history books, and this neat thing you intermittently seem to never heard of called the US Constitution.
The Atlantic Slave Trade existed [5], and approximately four-million victims of it were freed at the end of the US Civil War [6].
Multiple ethnicities of women existed in the USA back then as well [7].
In 1662 Virginia passed a law forcing all children born of slaves to themselves be slaves, and with the eventual ban on importing slaves the slave trade became obsessed with female slaves as breeders [8]; they were even forced to not have abortions as a well documented part of the slavery [9].
We also know the 13th Amendment existed, freeing people from slavery… Not some type of mere mental slavery as pro insists, but hellish physical slavery [10]. While there were mental aspects to the torture, the primary issues were nothing akin to mean tweets, but rather the physical factors.
The 2 million female slaves didn’t get to be kept as slaves because they were being raped good, they were freed just as any other slave. The ban on abortions which was part of the slavery was also lifted, instead of the plantation owners getting to keep them at least until they had given birth (plus however long for nursing, and whatever other excuse to keep owning slaves). Had it been otherwise, the 13th Amendment would have had to exclude women, but lo and behold, it did not.
“sexual. slavery is a completely different topic from slavery as a legal institution”
OMG, pro actually believe you get to keep slaves so long as you rape them.
Not how the 13th Amendment works, otherwise the number freed would have been about two-million instead of four-million.
Even Thomas Jefferson wrote of forced births as part of slavery [17]:
“I know no error more consuming to an estate than that of stocking farms with men almost exclusively. I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. [W]hat she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.”
“And tell me where it mentions kidnapping and how kidnapping is supposed to somehow be the same crime as enslavement”
Pro is now denying that the Atlantic Slave Trade kidnapped anyone… I suppose in his mind they all wanted that lifestyle. *slow clap*
“That's a nice try in logic there. But unfortunately, it doesn't work. “
This was in direct reply to “Nor does it mention whipping them in a field.” The most stereotypical form of slavery, but it seems pro’s now arguing that that no form of slavery at all counts as slavery. Which is a purely absurd notion.
“the definition I provided does not generally qualify as slavery”
I’ll take that as a concession. Pro is now opposed to his own definition of slavery being applied to slavery, and attempts to move the goalpost to a new definition. Will the next round have another?
Pro’s own provided definition: “the condition of being legally owned by someone else, or the system in which some people are owned by others”
Which for thematic understanding we can compare to involuntary servitude : “Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another. The term is sometimes equated with slavery, however, it does not necessarily imply the complete lack of personal freedom that accompanies slavery”
Of course pro insists that all forms of slavery not perfectly spelled out in great detail, cannot be slavery (he has literally done this for the stereotypical field worker). But if any of us believe otherwise, or generally that African Americans were mistreated, we’re “cherry picking” and “doesn't make any sense.”
Even if the goalpost is moved, rape remains violent. Heck, childbirth itself is quite violent. It turns out there’s a 32.9 per 100,000 maternal mortality rate, or 69.9 deaths per 100,000 if black [11]. Whereas Covid-19 kills 61.3 per 100,000 [12]. The panic over something so dangerous as to be quite comparable to pregnancy, was enough to basically ruin the world. Granted, those rates for women differ further in if they live in a civilized area, or some barbaric backwater which denies them assess to life saving medicine [18]
He could find no challenge to a simple point like “A woman being forced to stay pregnant is for the benefit of a bunch of [perverted] sadists…” instead leaving it wholly unrefuted that by his own definition forced pregnancy is slavery.
5. Declaration of Independence
Introducing this last round, was a preamble so it wouldn’t be out of nowhere.
“you're trying to misrepresent the Declaration of Independence”
No I’m not. That you may not understand why American history is relevant to this debate, only speaks to the quality of your education.
…
Life, Liberty, Property
John Lock was an early philosopher on the concept of those three essential rights [13]. Often property is substituted for “the pursuit of happiness,” but to our founding fathers it meant largely the same thing.
They are seen in the Declaration of Independence, the 5th Amendment [14], 14th Amendment [15], and more. These ethics are embedded into the foundations of this country.
It is upon them that the Supreme Court determined women have a right to an abortion under the Roe v Wade ruling (I prefer the 13th Amendment, but this principle predates our aversion to slavery). Without this right recognized, women are violated via denied access to life saving medicine [16].
Overview
As none of this was at all challenged, extend!
The matter is simple (slavery and indentured servant are used interchangeably):
- Slavery violates the 13th amendment (plus the declaration of independence and a few other key documents).
- A person has a constitutional right to not be a slave (as is needed to uphold the 13th).
- A person therefore has a constitutional right to take actions to prevent enslavement and/or to free themselves from slavery.
- Forced pregnancy meets the above, and the means of preventing/ending that one type of enslavement is abortion.
- Oh, and women are people.
Pro is of course welcome to come up with another way for those women to free themselves from the slavery that is forced pregnancy. Then denied abortions would not be a violation of their rights; but right now, abortion is the way to prevent/end slavery.
Sources:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evPZ-0UhL1E
- https://www.c-span.org/video/?518342-1/jackson-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1
- https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-voted-against-roe-v-wade-how-each-supreme-court-justice-ruled-on-overturning/2866182/
- https://www.britannica.com/video/238294/January-6-US-Capitol-attack
- https://blog.richmond.edu/livesofmaps/2014/11/11/map-of-the-week-slave-trade-from-africa-to-the-americas-1650-1860/
- https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/articles-and-essays/faces-and-voices-from-the-presentation/
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010196/population-us-1860-race-and-gender/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727302/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/
- https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/maternal-mortality-on-the-rise
- https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a4.htm
- https://www.cato.org/cato-university/home-study-course/module2
- https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
- https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/8/1/e001067
- https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/involuntary-reproductive-servitude-forced-pregnancy-abortion-and-thirteenth-amendment#heading
- https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/termination-of-pregnancy-can-be-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life-experts-say-idUSL1N2TC0VD/
Round 4
Pro
#7
Since this is indeed the last part of our debate, I will choose to summarize my main points instead, compare them with Con’s, and explain why my argument is the one to vote on.
My main argument is that Women do not have a Constitutional right to abortion because the Constitution does not mention abortion as a right anywhere, and per the 10th Amendment, matters not given to the federal government are reserved for the states.
My main points in the first round are:
- 1. The ruling of Dubs V. established that abortion is not a constitutionally protected activity and that states retain the right to allow and disallow the practice at their discretion.
- 2. The 9th Amendment did not allow people to determine their rights, and thus, the 9th Amendment could not be used to justify Abortion rights. (source provided)
- 3. Abortion rights are left to the states and not the federal government.
- Cons main points are:
- 1. Something not mentioned in the Constitution does not forbid it from being a right. It would have to be mentioned as an exclusion.
- 2. The Supreme Court justices are members of a cult that is misogynistic towards women. Who passed the Roe v. Wade as part of a cultist coup.
- 3. The judge's rule on Roe V. Wade was made due to the belief that abortion was not deep-rooted in American history.
- 4. That the 10th Amendment somehow protects abortion right because the Constitution does not say that the government has the right to a person's body.
- 5. Women do not have a right to vote on abortion because, despite being 50 percent of the population, they do not vote when the matter is brought up because the state of Texas made a law making abortion a felony. And that the people did not make this decision but a Cabal in secret meetings.
- 6. States love the Constitution but hate women. And that they treat single mothers worse than states that allow abortion.
- 7. Pregnancy is hard work and sacrifice.
- 8. If the government reimburses a pregnant woman, she is an indentured servant, and if not, she is a slave, according to the 13th Amendment.
My approach focused on building a strong legal case by citing numerous legal references. I demonstrated that the US Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion rights, and the 9th Amendment's protections don't apply in this context. Furthermore, I showed how Roe v. Wade established abortion rights as falling under state jurisdiction, not federal control.
In contrast, my opponent's arguments lacked substantial legal support. They relied heavily on unverified sources and ventured into irrelevant topics. While they presented several points, few directly addressed the legal framework of the debate.
In round 2, my main points are:
- 1. The Idea that the Supreme Court judges are misogynistic cultists is an opinion on Cons that is neither relevant nor grounded in law. (no source provided)
- 2. I noted that Con has made an error in claiming that America, from 1607 to 1860, was a country that permitted abortion for over 250 years. In fact, America did not become a nation in 1607, and anti-abortion legislation was enacted as early as the 1820s. (sources provided)
- 3. Refuted Con’s position on the 10th Amendment as it was irrelevant to slavery (no sources provided.)
- 4. Refuted Con's assertion regarding women's voting by pointing out the 19th Amendment, which indicated that the choice not to vote is made freely by women themselves.
- 5. Refuted Con’s claim that Taxa’s State law applied everywhere by stating that Federal law applies everywhere while states apply only to themselves.
- 6. Pointed out that everyone at the age of 18 can vote when Con claimed women’s rights were an Alien concept.
- 7. I noted that Con made contradictory statements, first mentioning that abortion has been legally performed for over 250 years and then stating anti-abortionists prevented abortions from occurring between 1776 to 1865.
Cons main points are:
- 1. Tries to justify their claims about the judges being cultists through a subjective article.
- 2. States that the 14th Amendment was interrupted to prevent abortion from being denied by the government.
- 3. Used a source and cherry-picked its wording to argue that I provided a source that proved their point.
- 4. A repeat of what they said in count 4. In the first round.
- 5. Argues that they had a right to abortion through the 19th Amendment
- 6. Claims the 19th Amendment was required as part of a misogynistic cult ploy. I am declaring the 19th Amendment and 15th Amendment as embarrassments.
- 7. Refuses to address the contradictions I pointed out and instead tells me to scroll down.
- 8. Tries to claim that the 13th Amendment addresses all forms of slavery.
My response focused on addressing the core arguments of the debate. I highlighted the subjective nature of relying on personal opinions about judges and the dangers of introducing conspiracy theories into the discussion. Additionally, I pointed out a historical inconsistency in the Con's position regarding the history of abortion access.
Clarifying the Analogy of Slavery:
My opponent mistakenly claimed that I conceded on the point regarding the 13th Amendment. I argued that the Amendment abolished slavery as an institution, not all forms of forced labor. Additionally, I emphasized that denying abortion access does not equate to slavery.
My opponent mistakenly claimed that I conceded on the point regarding the 13th Amendment. I argued that the Amendment abolished slavery as an institution, not all forms of forced labor. Additionally, I emphasized that denying abortion access does not equate to slavery.
Furthermore, I clarified the legal distinctions surrounding abortion access, specifically addressing the misconception that the Texas law applies nationwide.
To further strengthen my position, we can analyze specific examples from the debate where the Con's arguments misapplied the 14th Amendment or selectively cited evidence from my source. Additionally, it's important to remember that the 19th Amendment guarantees voting rights, not abortion rights, as the Con suggested. This distinction is crucial for a clear understanding of women's rights in this context.
My main points in Round 3:
- 1. Con is using an analyst's subjective opinions to justify an irrelevant conspiracy theory that had no basis in the discussion.
- 2. Con brought up an irrelevant Court case about presidential immunity and even then misrepresented said court case.
- 3. I pointed out that not only did Con provide no sources to establish in law that the 13th and 14th Amendments support the idea of abortion rights, But I also highlighted the continued contradiction of claiming a Constitution that Con believes is written by misogynists also supports women's rights to abortion.
- 4. I also pointed out Cons inconsistencies of making multiple stories. In one story, abortion is a long-time American tradition. In another, anti-abortionists have successfully blocked abortion for centuries. In the last one, Con claims women's rights are an alien concept in the eyes of the lawmakers, who Con also claims to recognize abortion as a right.
- 5. I also corrected Con on their misunderstanding of the 15th Amendment.
- 6. I pointed out that the definition of slavery as an institution and the definition of sexual slavery were fundamentally different and thus could not be used to argue that abortion is a form of slavery. (Source provided)
Cons main points:
- 1. Continues to argue the judges are cultists.
- 2. Claims Courts are using the law to put their religious beliefs on everyone.
- 3. Tries to justify their lack of research about slavery by arguing that slavery still occurs.
- 4. Claims Trump is relevant to the debate because he appointed the judges that overturned Roe V. Wade.
- 5. Brings of January 6th to justify bringing up presidential immunity.
- 6. Tries to establish legal falsehoods, such as denying slavery simply because I pointed out that the 10th Amendment does not have any references to slavery.
- 7. Falsely claims I conceded on the idea of slavery despite no such concession existing.
Highlighting the Strength of My Position:
• My argument emphasizes the inconsistency in Con's position. By pointing out contradictions between Con's support for abortion rights and their characterization of legislators who Con claims to be both misogynistic and allowed Women to have abortion rights that Con claims women both had and did not have for over 250 years, I aimed to demonstrate potential flaws in their reasoning.
Addressing the Opposing Argument:
• While the opposing argument raised the importance of women's rights, it would be even stronger if supported by specific references to legal documents or scholarly sources on abortion rights.
• Additionally, accurately representing my stance is crucial for a productive debate. I did not concede on the issue of slavery.
• Finally, a closer look at the source material might be helpful. While the source may be relevant, it appears there might be a misinterpretation regarding the history of abortion rights in America.
Throughout this discussion, I've focused on building a strong legal case. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion as a right. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. This, along with the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, strengthens the argument that the regulation of abortion lies with the states.
My opponent presented several points, but many lacked legal support and deviated from the core issue. Furthermore, attributing motivations or conspiracies to Supreme Court justices undermines a civil discussion.
The Importance of Legal Framework:
Clarity on the legal framework is crucial. My position upholds the original intent of the Constitution and empowers individual states to address this complex issue in a way that reflects their citizens' values.
My Advantage in Law and Factuality:
Throughout the debate, I focused on building a strong legal case supported by factual evidence. The U.S. Constitution and relevant Supreme Court decisions formed the foundation of my arguments.
Opponent's Approach:
While my opponent referenced the Constitution, their interpretations often relied on personal viewpoints rather than legal precedents. Additionally, their arguments lacked substantial support from scholarly research.
The Importance of a Strong Legal Basis:
A clear understanding of the law is essential in this debate. By grounding my arguments in the Constitution and relevant legal sources, I presented a more compelling and verifiable position.
Rebuttals:
Refocusing the Discussion:
It's important to maintain a clear focus on the core legal arguments surrounding abortion rights. My previous point regarding the scope of the 13th Amendment aimed to highlight the distinction between slavery as an institution and the issue of abortion access.
False Equivalency:
Comparing the denial of abortion to historical African American slavery is a false equivalency.
Comparing the denial of abortion to historical African American slavery is a false equivalency.
Sources:
Con argues that the source I provided supports their position. However, the source clearly demonstrates the existence of anti-abortion laws since 1820. This directly contradicts Con's earlier claim that abortion was a widely accepted medical practice for 250 years.
Atlantic slavery:
Con has misrepresented my position. I never claimed the Atlantic slave trade didn't involve kidnapping. My point was to distinguish between kidnapping (the act of forcible capture) And slavery (the forced ownership of another person.) These are separate crimes with distinct legal definitions.
Furthermore, I never claimed that no form of slavery was illegal. I only said that there were different types of slavery and that, while still illegal, they had their definitions and did not all apply to the 13th Amendment.
Childbirth being violent:
While rape is undoubtedly a violent act, it's a separate issue from the debate on abortion rights.
Slavery vs involuntary servitude
My opponent's attempt to misinterpret the definition of slavery was unsuccessful. The highlighted text in their own argument clearly outlines the key differences between slaves and indentured servants. Furthermore, they failed to establish a relevant link between pregnant women and the specificities of African American slavery. Their argument relies solely on a subjective viewpoint, lacking any legal foundation.
He could find no challenge to a simple point like “A woman being forced to stay pregnant is for the benefit of a bunch of [perverted] sadists…” instead leaving it wholly unrefuted that by his own definition forced pregnancy is slavery.
I found plenty to challenge that Con, you did not address it. My definition did not provide any basis for claiming that women being forced to stay pregnant is slavery. I even pointed out that the 13th Amendment also does not support the notion. And let's be clear. Your highlighted text is your definition. Not mine. The definition I provided stated that you have to be owned by another person to be considered a slave. You did not refute this definition. Nor did you provide a source to say that women are owned by the state or the people who impregnate them. So, in point of fact, you are going by your own definition. It's not anything authentic.
No I’m not. That you may not understand why American history is relevant to this debate, only speaks to the quality of your education
So, you mean tell me that a document written Soley for the purpose of declaring independence against Great Britain is somehow relevant in a discussion about Constitutional rights? Thats clearly not true. Next. You will be telling us that the Articles of Confederation still apply and are relevant when anyone who knows the history of America would beg to differ.
John Lock was an early philosopher on the concept of those three essential rights [13]. Often property is substituted for “the pursuit of happiness,” but to our founding fathers it meant largely the same thing.
John Locke is neither a founding father nor a signer in the Declaration of Independence. So, in point of fact, he is not relevant to the Declaration of Independence, and the farmwork is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not life. Liberty and property. You cannot base law on someone who did not write said law.
They are seen in the Declaration of Independence, the 5th Amendment [14], 14th Amendment [15], and more. These ethics are embedded into the foundations of this country.It is upon them that the Supreme Court determined women have a right to an abortion under the Roe v Wade ruling (I prefer the 13th Amendment, but this principle predates our aversion to slavery). Without this right recognized, women are violated via denied access to life saving medicine [16].
- The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different documents.
- the Supreme Court overruled Roe V Wade.
- medicine has never been a right.
- Women cannot be violated of rights they never had.
My response to cons: "None of this has been challenged list"
The matter is simple (slavery and indentured servant are used interchangeably):
False. I challenged that when I said that there was a difference in slavery, which requires that a person must own you. And indentured servitude, which is where someone is forced to work by being coerced but does not lack the same level of freedom as a slave. You even mention it in your own argument.
- Slavery violates the 13th amendment (plus the declaration of independence and a few other key documents).
I never challenged that slavery violates the 13th Amendment because I never made an argument to justify slavery to begin with. I only challenged that forced pregnancy was not legally considered slavery. And that sexual slavery was a separate crime from institutional slavery.
2. A person has a constitutional right to not be a slave (as is needed to uphold the 13th).
Again, we never debated whether slavery could be legally practiced. You tried to argue the states enslave pregnant women by denying abortions. To which, I refuted by pointing out a lack of legal authenticity behind the claim. At this point, you're trying to gain points by pointing out things you never brought up in the first place. I can't argue against things that did not exist in the first place, Con.
3. A person therefore has a constitutional right to take actions to prevent enslavement and/or to free themselves from slavery.
That would only be true in an instance where some evil organization was criminally enslaving people without the government's knowledge. Even then, that doesn't change the fact that this was never brought up until now.
4. Forced pregnancy meets the above, and the means of preventing/ending that one type of enslavement is abortion.
It may meet your subjective definition by your circular logic, but this in no way proves that forced pregnancy is a form of slavery in any objective or legal stance. And calming I never argued against the idea that forced pregnancy is slavery is a false claim as I have refuted it many times. Con, you can keep making up these false accusations and made-up definitions as much as you want. However, the fact remains that you are operating on your own biases rather than fact.
5. Oh, and women are people.
Pointless. Women being people was never in the contest by me or you. It's nonsense even to bring it up.
Conclusion:
In this discussion, I've presented evidence and reasoning that supports my interpretation of the Constitution regarding abortion rights. My sources were credible and addressed the key arguments. While my opponent offered a different perspective, their points lacked legal grounding and often resorted to personal attacks. It's important to focus on the legal principles and established precedents on this complex issue. Implying that I support slavery or don't view women as people is beyond unprofessional. I would recommend voters focus on the legal issue at hand and not be fooled by Con's circular reasoning that he tries to substrate for actual evidence. Subjective opinions should never substrate factual evidence. Women neither have a right to abortion nor are they slaves for being denied it.
Con
#8
What strange synchronicity…
In R1 I pointed out that the misogynistic cult taking over Washington have the “scientific” belief that it’s not legitimate rape if you get her pregnant [1].
Pro centers his defense on how it’s not legitimate slavery if you you rape them!
On both accounts I truly wish I was being fictitious.
Reminders:
Contention 4 (the 13th Amendment) was my main argument. I repeatedly reminded pro of this throughout the debate. I even spelled it out in a numbered list at the end of multiple rounds. I mention this here due to pro’s closing proclaiming that it was some afterthought to me.
While pro repeatedly tried to dismiss my case as “emotional,” I made it clear in literally my second sentence in this debate that “I’m not spitting in rage when I call out various evil SOBs for being evil SOBs, instead I’m mocking them in a soothing voice which is less likely to hurt their smooth brains.”
Beyond that, I literally lost count of the lies about my case pro made. He couldn’t even tell the truth about being told to scroll up (he claims I told him to scroll down for information I gave him previously, which makes no sense). Naturally I shall not be responding to the lion’s share of them.
1. Complete Absence in the Constitution itself (14th)
As pro dropped the majority of this, extend all.
Roe v. Wade:
The Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion, they then upheld it for 50 years making it a super precedent. That’s 50 years of case after case reaffirming it. All experts agree that abortion has been a deeply rooted American tradition going all the way back [2]. No sane person can name any basis to repeal Roe v. Wade, to include pro.
To be clear, pro repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was overturned, but when the basis for that was repeatedly challenged he had zilch. To somehow support his case, he even declared such absurdities as Brett Kavanaugh and other lawmakers are vampires or some other type of immortal living at least hundreds of years (this seriously happened, search for “Are these the same lawmakers”).
Plus pro was opposed to President Trump’s words and actions being used as evidence (Trump had literally outed three members of the supreme court as members of an anti-constitutional coup, his own anti-constitutional coup to be exact). I granted that under the condition that his appointments to the supreme court would likewise be discounted, which would change the vote to overturn “Roe v. Wade from 5/4, down to 2/4” [3]. I have of course refrained from using more of my Trump arguments in honor of that deal.
A voter may view the deal as valid, and Roe v. Wade wholly intact; or invalid and the overturning Roe v. Wade was directly and intentionally anti-constitutional. Either way, the 14th Amendment upholds women’s constitutional right to abortion, as has been legally upheld countless times by the supreme court.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Evil cults launching an anti-constitutional coup ought to not be obeyed. Pro tried and failed to disprove the religious disposition of congress and the supreme court, tried and failed to prove they aren’t members of the same religious sect as the one behind this lawsuit, and he even failed to disprove that they wear robes at their meetings. Need I go on?
Beyond that, see Roe v. Wade above.
2. People Cannot Make Up Their Own Rights (9th)
As pro dropped the majority of this, extend all.
Pro never recovered from the accidental concession I caught:
““These rights are not created bythe 9th Amendment, they are derived from … thetraditions and customs of the people.”Abortion is a longstanding tradition/custom of the people [2], so by this standard, a right.
As my sources showed, and his backed me up on, in the early USA (and the colonies which preceded it whom we inherited many deeply rooted traditions from) abortion was perfectly legal until the quickening. When that changed it was literally when:
A racist and sexist group petitioned politicians with lies about science to change that (notice a trend?), not for any religious reason like the cults we see today, but literally as a business tactic against traditional medicine [2].
Pro acknowledged that with quoting it but chose to completely drop it, so extend with emphasis!
There we have it, the only reason abortion was ever made illegal (after the quickening, I am not making an argument either way on late term abortions), is dumb people got tricked by con men, and continue to do so. Thankfully George Washington put the 9th Constitutional Amendment in place to protect people against that eventuality (even if it fails to be effective).
3. Abortion is Left to the States, Not the Constitution (10th)
As pro dropped the majority of this, extend all.
Rapists Getting the Government to Enslave Women
This was a point which utilized nuance, and built itself both around and in support of other arguments.
Pro claimed that if abortion is up to the states then women will get to vote on abortion, I proved that almost entirely wrong. In one recent example (pro found zero counter examples), less than 50 women from the whole state got to take part in the voting [4] (or 0.0000032%; but pro actually tries to hand wave it away by declaring the remaining 99.99968% of “Women CHOOSE not to participate” [sic]); and just about the only one of those few to not vote in favor of keeping their rights, was the honest-to-god uber-Karen [5].
I then upped the ante with Texas’ view on rape victims, and punishment thereof. Texas gives them (the pregnant ones at least) a choice of 9 months of slavery to the rapist (dropping her whole life to carry his progeny; during which she better not so much as sneeze too hard for fear of miscarriage and then being sent to prison for life…), or life in prison (for not carrying his progeny). … Pro’s attempted refutation of this was a very Todd Akin like victim blaming of they’re punished for getting pregnant by being raped, which “has nothing to do with whether she was raped or not” [6]. And of course insisting without any basis that women having their constitutional rights violated in Texas doesn’t count because pro said so, which in and of itself strongly implies said violations are occurring.
Note on the above, that this connects into my argument on the 13th Amendment (need I explain that Amendments work in tandem with each other?). The 13th does actually allow the government to enslave people, but only if they’ve committed a crime. And as pro was insanely fast to point out, they committed the crime of not helping a rapist reproduce which “is considered a felony in the state of Texas.”
This tied into the 19th Amendment (raised by pro to try to disprove reality about how many actually get to vote), since women not getting to vote on abortion issues (as I have repeatedly proven), is violating another of their constitutional rights. That evil people in power specifically prevent them from voting on if they’re allowed to get abortions or not (ok, technically a whole 0.0000032% of them can vote [4], but as this is not what the 19th Amendment promised my point stands), speaks volumes. Any time they are denied an abortion, and they didn’t get to vote on the issue (not saying win or lose, literally just that they get to vote), their constitutional rights are violated.
Around here pro lost his mind, and started ranting that because I think the 19th isn’t honored I must believe the 19th was put in place by vampires to oppress women, probably something about ManBearPig [10]… There’s a point where the words of someone at pro’s unique intellectual caliber just aren’t worth reading.
4. Slavery is Evil (13th)
As pro dropped the majority of this, extend all.
Kind of amazing how things went full circle. I insult Todd Akin supporters for thinking women aren’t people and that raping them isn’t a crime so long as you get them pregnant… Only for pro’s defensive case to revolve around his belief that absolutely nothing can count as slavery so long as you rape them (and he later evolved it to if the slavery includes any physical elements then it’s not slavery… Yup zero black people were enslaved by his logic).
Definitions
A review from the debate.
13 Amendment:
- “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” [7].
Or condensed down:
- “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States”
Involuntary Servitude:
- “Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another. The term is sometimes equated with slavery, however, it does not necessarily imply the complete lack of personal freedom that accompanies slavery” [8].
Or condensed down:
- “Involuntary servitude refers to being forced through coercion to work for another.”
Slavery:
A couple important notes on slavery’s definition:
- Pro insists that it’s a “subjective definition” and that you should vote against the guy who brought this “made-up definition” into the debate. Ctrl+F will let you easily verify who he wishes you to vote against.
- It includes the example of slavery: “Millions of Africans were sold into slavery” [9]. This is pro yet again conceding major ground that his case depends upon, as his closing outright declared it doesn’t count as slavery if you’re victimizing people of African descent (well, at least their women... more on that in a bit).
It is worth noting that sometimes something falls outside of one definition and into the other. I view anything between them as falling within the range of their amendment. In all cases, I’m usually going to say slavery for short.
Fact vs Fiction
Pro has made a lot of interesting claims regarding the 13th Amendment, no doubt stemming from whatever the quality of his education. Let’s compare:
Pro insists literally 13 times that the 13th Amendment has a special clause that if you rape your slaves then it somehow makes the it not count as slavery. Let’s look for that clause, it actually says… “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States” Weirdly seems absent… Let’s move on to another.
It doesn’t count as slavery if you whip them… Yes, pro argued that back in R3… So let’s check for the clause he’s talking about in the 13th Amendment to make it ok to keep slaves so long as you whip them: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States.” Might be something wrong with my eyes, but I can’t seem to find this cornerstone of pro’s case.
It can’t count as slavery if it’s physical enslavement! Yes, astoundingly, pro made this argument about that being declared in the 13th Amendment, that anyone suffering “enslavement of the body” shall not be freed by the 13th Amendment… Except like nearly everything else pro says is there, it’s not! “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States.”
That last one is particularly egregious. He’s all but making the argument that it was anti-constitutional to free those 4-million black people, because their enslavements were physical… Actually, by his logic, it was clear as day abuse of the 13th Amendment to free any blacks…
Breeders
I’ve covered this earlier, but even while dropped it bears repeating…
Women being turned into slaves for use of their wombs is well known:
Even Thomas Jefferson wrote of forced births as part of slavery [11]:“I know no error more consuming to an estate than that of stocking farms with men almost exclusively. I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. [W]hat she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.”
This also confirms that slave via pregnancy was part of the slavery targeted by the 13th Amendment (unless pro can find where some types of slavery are allowed in the 13th Amendment, but to me slavery not being allowed to exist is pretty clear)
Pro’s arguments against it are such things as declaring: “Slavery is a completely different topic from slavery as a legal institution.” Which makes so little sense I don't know what to think of it.
“Comparing the denial of abortion to historical African American slavery is a false equivalency.”
Pro basically admits he can't win against the 13th Amendment, so wishes to exclude the existence of black slaves from this discussion long after they were brought up to understand the specific slavery types that the 13th Amendment was designed against.
Pro could find nothing preventing a former black breeder slave from getting an abortion to be free of the rapist master. Which is so much of what this debate is about, if women own their own bodies or if they are slaves; and yes, historically those former slaves were allowed abortions after the 13th Amendment, as I pointed out earlier.
...
I have also covered the peonage laws above, which were of course dropped by pro. Loopholes of renaming slavery “peonage” or “sexslave “ or “no really it’s not a slave because I want to keep my slaves” are legally all still just slavery and thus unconstitutional [17]. The name isn’t what matters, it’s how someone is treated.
Despite pro’s argumentum ad nauseam claim [12], different ethnicities of women exist and were treated differently. Hence why there were both white women and black women living in the USA, and those 13-million free white women were generally allowed abortions, 2-billion enslaved black women who were not, and about a quarter million free black women mostly who had the same access to abortion as the white women [13].
Part of the horrors of this, is that abortion is sometimes life saving medicine [14]. In response pro literally declared:
“medicine has never been a right” and “women cannot be violated of rights they never had.”
We’re literally talking about women dying in some of the worst possible ways, and pro gets on his misogynistic soap box as if to praise the glory of it…
5. Declaration of Independence
Pro actually tried to put up on fight on this, so I cannot extend all.
Unfortunately for pro, he had a profound comprehension issue, likely tied to him trying to knock out these debates in less time than it would take to review sources.
He wrote it so fast, he managed to deny that the constitution has a 5th Amendment [15], and 14th Amendment [16]. He failed to do anything to actually reject the tradition of the early legal documents I referenced.. And this is the guy who wrote of constitutional rights coming from “thetraditions and customs of the people” [sic], not realizing that would equally apply to women's rights because they're people too (as he concedes later).
Women from the 14th, 5th, Declaration of independence, and a few other founding documents, have had the rights to life, liberty, property (or the “pursuit of happiness” if you like feel-good synonyms). Pro has argued women have no right to life (at least if an abortion is needed for it), but could find no reason why other than just denying things like the 14th exist. He’s denied their liberty (slavery isn't library), property of their own bodies and their pursuit of happiness. These rights are fundamental constitutional rights, which in addition to being opposed to the declaration of independence, you’d also have to shut your head in the sand and pretend those mean ol’ 5th and 14th Amendments don’t exist.
Reading Comprehension:
Grabbing one snippet of pro’s case at random…
Pro’s summary of my case here was hilariously bad, so much so that the strawman has barely a passing resemblance to just a couple parts of my comments on this contention, and wholly missing the most important parts.
“Women do not have a right to vote on abortion because, despite being 50 percent of the population, they do not vote when the matter is brought up because the state of Texas made a law making abortion a felony. And that the people did not make this decision but a Cabal in secret meetings.”
I invite him to expand in the comment section how 48 women [4], are somehow 50% of the population as he claims. Maybe I’m misinformed and Karen talked the rest to death [5], but until we have a reason to believe any state has less than 50 women, pro’s lack of knowledge of the USA demographics damns his case from the onset.
Overview (really, primary argument)
Pro dropped these repeatedly, even when I switched them to their own heading… He then begged for sympathy by stating “the fact that this was never brought up until now.
I ask all voters to search for the word “Overview”; if it’s there twice above (not counting R1 when it wasn’t spelled out so explicitly), then pro is gaslighting the heck out of you in a desperate attempt to make up for his failed arguments (or that criticism goes to me if it’s actually not there).
The matter is simple (slavery and indentured servant are used interchangeably):“False. I challenged that…”
This is a great example of contradictions instead of arguments. Arguments have something intelligent to say, contradictions merely disagree with absolutely everything for no rhyme nor reason [18]
Slavery violates the 13th amendment.“I never challenged that slavery violates the 13th Amendment…”
Again [18].
2. A person has a constitutional right to not be a slave“Again, we never debated whether slavery could be legally practiced…”
And here pro loses any credibility that I could have been wrong about him.
3. A person therefore has a constitutional right to take actions to prevent enslavement and/or to free themselves from slavery.“This was never brought up until now.”
Yes it was (not going to link the scrolling tutorial again, but it'd be appropriate)
4. Forced pregnancy meets the above, and the means of preventing/ending that one type of enslavement is abortion.“It may meet your subjective definition by your circular logic, but this in no way proves that forced pregnancy is a form of slavery in any objective or legal stance.”
See above for definition of slave, which has been proven when a woman is forced to be owned by another she’s a slave (and no, I don’t think renaming her a peon or other loophole holds up to scrutiny of any sane person) See 5th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments (but mainly the 13th and 14th), plusRoe v. Wade, which my argument upheld no matter how you look at it.
5. Oh, and women are people.“Pointless. Women being people was never in the contest by me or you. It's nonsense even to bring it up..”
Recall that pro based parts of his case on women not being people for their traditions to matter.
Conclusion
As stated in R1...
Pregnancy is hard work and sacrifice [9]. To be coerced into continuing it against one's wishes, is making treating said person as a piece of property (AKA, a slave), rather than as a person.Without even addressing how much women are punished in the USA for not getting an abortion (which can coerce them into getting an abortion they otherwise might not), being coerced to work for another is by definition involuntary servitude.A pregnant woman being told she may not get an abortion or else go to prison the rest of her life, is coercing her. Continuing the pregnancy is hard work, so hard in fact that it tends to interfere with employment.Does the government reimburse her?
- If yes, then she’s an indentured servant
- If not, then she’s a slave
Since both are anti-constitutional per the 13th Amendment, women have a constitutional right to abort unwanted pregnancies.
Pro's tactic was mainly to declare she's a sex slave, but he could never point out why that is not a slave when it is still clearly being owned by another. He even tried to base her not being a slave on her not getting properly reimbursed...
Sources:
- https://www.wired.com/2012/08/house-committee-science/
- https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us
- https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-voted-against-roe-v-wade-how-each-supreme-court-justice-ruled-on-overturning/2866182/
- https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-heres-how-lawmakers-voted-heartbeat-bill-legislature/5706081001/
- https://www.google.com/search?q=Stephanie+Klick%2C+R-Fort+Worth
- https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/todd-akins-sexual-assault-gaffe/photos/sort/comments
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/13th-amendment
- https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/involuntary-servitude/
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slavery
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoEP-IqoDg
- https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/involuntary-reproductive-servitude-forced-pregnancy-abortion-and-thirteenth-amendment#heading-2
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010196/population-us-1860-race-and-gender/
- https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/8/1/e001067
- https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
- https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/peonage/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evPZ-0UhL1E
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I was going to write a more in-depth RfD for this debate, but actually, I think I can keep it relatively simple yet complete.
The way I see it, there were two main issues at stake here. First, the idea of abortion not existing as a longstanding tradition in the US. Con, for whatever reason, brings up the Dobbs decision, which said that the Constitution provided no guaranteed right to abortion, but tries to argue that by the decision's own reasoning, it should be a Constitutional right. While I see what argument Con was going for, I don't think bringing up the decision helped them out in the end, as they referred to an actual decision on the matter of Constitutional law which directly contradicts their own case. Pro also points out the contradiction in saying that abortion was typically allowed before the quickening, but also that many enslaved women were forced to remain pregnant. I feel like this point goes to Pro.
The other major point for me was slavery. Con argues that pregnancy does count as a form of labor, and if a pregnant woman has no legal way to stop being pregnant, that is forced labor, which is slavery and outlawed by the 13th amendment. Pro's response to this argument feels fractured and I don't fully understand it. He tries to make a separation between institutional slavery and sex slavery, claiming that the 13th amendment specifically outlawed the former, but Con points out that the 13A outlawed all forms of slavery. Con also points to how, historically, female slaves were forced to remain pregnant and give birth specifically because it was financially advantageous to the slaveholder, meaning it was for the benefit of another person. In the end, I feel like Pro could have won on this point, but their arguments were just not it.
Since both sides agree that the Constitution does not specifically say that abortion is not a civil right, all Con needed was to demonstrate unconstitutionality through one good line of reasoning, and I think they managed to do that in this debate. Con wins.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vi7wGmJhi7kMUBxz_QbRrAFPgo3m4zjKqmz3-7vnoXI/edit?usp=sharing
Long story short, I think a lot of the debate got mired in definitions, which ended up making it harder for Pro to focus on the more vulnerable elements of Con's argument. Given the burdens of the debate and what Pro had to do to meet them, Con only had to win one argument, and I think he did with the 13th Amendment.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://youtu.be/Mfq98FqnxOQ
You can skip to the last 5 to 7 minutes for the vote
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate took a while to read through. I will judge on what personally resonated with me.
Con provided a thorough and detailed analysis. They referenced multiple constitutional amendments, court cases, and historical context to argue that denying abortion is akin to slavery. They argued that the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, which they extends to forced pregnancy. Pro focused on refuting Con's claims and provided counterarguments related to the 13th Amendment and the nature of abortion rights.
Pro's arguments were more compelling to me. Their effective rebuttals led to a more persuasive presentation of their case. I found their counterarguments offered a clearer interpretation of legal texts. The contradictions brought up personally made sense. When Con made an attempt to address those contradictions, the explanations did not fully resonate and make sense to me.
Con cited various sources, from historical documents to legal definitions, which greatly supported their case. Pro used legal and historical references to challenge Con's points. However, the sources often seemed less focused on directly supporting their counterarguments. The sheer amount of sources on Con's side was also a persuasive element.
The conduct point was given to Pro because Con included vulgarity and a highly emotional approach. It certainly impacted my evaluation of their overall performance. Pro’s adherence to a more respectful approach contributed positively to their evaluation of conduct. Con's authoritative approach may have very well resonated with other judges, but not with me.
okay sounds good.
I’m going to treat what he said here in the comments as additional information about his vote that will go along with his video.
Also, I wanted to point out that this one last thing. I only took issue with his vote. After he admitted in the comments that his reasoning was not based on the craiteria in which is vote was based and the comments prove that. Not just the video.
understood.
"You don't think swearing is an example of vulgarity?"
no ive never just heard that comment directed against Barney
I’m not here to police all accusations, particularly those directed at what you’ve said. Insulting your intelligence is distinct and against the CoC.
I never called your intelligence into question until you called me retarded and presumed to know what level of the spectrum I am at. I only pointed out that you were admitting to voting outside of the criteria that was required and you escalated it from there.
Now he is calling me a hypocrite.
I know you don’t need me to explain this. I get being frustrated, but try to be civil and direct what you’re saying at the points rather than the person. You might perceive them differently than he does, but that doesn’t change how it’s taken.
"particularly those aimed towards one person's intellectual capacities?"
As somebody who was in LD classes, I don't see it as being insulting to point out when I encounter a fellow on my intellectual level
You literally called my intelligence or my honor into question with your stupid take on my vote and you did not watch the video which outlines the voter better. So if you agree with whiteflame it makes you a hypocrite
I fully agree with you.
Can we please refrain from insults, particularly those aimed towards one person's intellectual capacities? This is an issue with the contents of the debate and a vote, it doesn't help the conversation along, and it's against the CoC.
goodbye.
I am a utilitarian, which means I value your well being over your feelings. It is important that you stay in your wheelhouse to get the best outcomes in life. I would hate for you to squander what little potential you have. I love you
Right, means lower IQ. Meaning you are claiming I am mentally stupid, and you do not know WHY that's offensive to me? And I am the "Intellectually disabled" one? Dude. You cannot be so stupid as to not understand why being called retarded is hurtful. What would I prefer? How about respect? Being treated like a human being? Any of that make sense to you?! Is that a SIMPLE enough concept for you?!
Retard is a medical term to mean lower IQ. Not sure why you would be offended by it. Would you prefer to be called special or Intellectually disabled? I do not intend to offend
You don't think swearing is an example of vulgarity?
You know nothing about me or my disabilities. You are just trying to be offensive while at the same time pleading ignorance and saying you meant nothing by it to goad me into an immature fight. You are not getting it. You insulted me with a highly offensive word wanting to upset me and you succeeded. And your reward is that I do not wish to talk to you anymore.
I think the real question is that who is the real, "retard" here? Is it me? the Highly autistic man who took the time to learn and understand my disabilities so that I can adapt and overcome said disabilities to the point that a know-nothing like yourself can't even tell without me spelling it out for you. Or is it you since you both can't play by the rules, and when called out on it, give a million different in-coherent stories to justify said toxic behavior, and you go around calling people names because you have the maturity of a five-year-old?
Think about that before you want to call anyone else, "Retarded." You can keep messaging if you want, but I am no longer replying or listening.
"The conduct point was given to Pro because Con included vulgarity and a highly emotional approach."
first time ive ever heard you having vulgar language lol
Autistic people are generally good with logic, reasoning and systemizing. I would hate for you to believe that you are high functioning and then lose a lot of money pursuing a STEM degree when a trade would be more suitable. I am looking out for your best interests. Maybe you are autistic but high functioning is incorrect. You are nowhere even close to being like Sheldon
For the last time, this debate is over. I am a highly functional autistic man, sir. I do not have the time nor patience to listen to you try to justify offending me by mocking the conditions that I had since birth by miscategorizing them as a mental disability that affects one's intelligence such as retardation. The fact you see, "nothing wrong" with calling someone an offensive word for disabled people, who by the way do not fit under the derogatory term known as retarded, shows just how deplorable your character truly is.
I have nothing further to add to you, sir, except you should be ashamed of your disgraceful ignorant self.
Why are you offended by the word retard. Its okay to be a retard. I am not trying to be offensive by letting you know that. You can confirm it with an IQ test if you want. It's not meant to be offensive. We are equal in God's eyes. I am no better than you just because I am a genius and you are a retard. Genius is not an insult towards myself either, just a word that means exceptionally high IQ
"ly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery.""
He pointed out that she does work for the benefit of another and it is unpaid and pointed out that loopholes like "not officially owning people" are not objections to it being slavery. The definition you provided also does not say that you have to be owned by the people enslaving you. This stuff was addressed and shot down
The term retard is highly offensive, and I am not engaging with you on this subject anymore, The mods will decide. once again, good day.
I am not calling you a retard as an insult. There is nothing wrong with being a retard. I married one. It's important that you know if you are one so you know what is a waste of your time to pursue. I would urge you to learn a trade like plumbing or electrician and to avoid STEM degrees and since any degree that is not a STEM degree is a waste of money, you should not waste money on college. You can live a fulfilling life but only if you recognize your limits. Also entrepenuership, daytrading and other similar dreams that involve thinking well are also off the table.
It doesn't make you a bad person, but the quality of your life will be compromised by trying to use your brain to make money or even decisions. Trust the experts and please keep voting republican, we also welcome votes from the low end of the bell curve as well.
>but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery.
That is a lie, when said that, I responded with and I quote. " Firstly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery."
I did not say, ""People don't mean abortion when they say slavery".
Debate is over, you are a liar, and you did not adhere to the rules. I have informed the mods and will inform them of your attacks on me. good day.
Oh, going to call me a retard, are you? Don't even worry about it. I'll let the moderators decide on this, so we do not have to worry about it.
"Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid."
Because you could have agreed with 90% of what he said and merely focused on his slavery syllogism and still win. You are not getting that Barney knows his arguments could be easily defeated. That is why he through out so many red herrings. Read his other debates. He defeated you because you allowed his red herrings to actually be effective
"gain, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote."
No you dropped your own positive argument, allowed him to control the definition of slavery. That means essentially that his arguments were not thoroughly addresses and yours were not thoroughly made. I gave my full decision and you can watch the video but I summarized it below as follows;
"Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
"Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not. "
This is why you are a retard. Con says the supreme court is ruled by cultists, and you bite and argue against that irrelevant point, He argues that they hate women and you bite and argue against that relevant point. he argues that it was legal 250 years ago and you bite on that irrelevant red herring. He argues that it is slavery and you allow him to define slavery in a stupid way and your rebuttal is essentially "Nuh uh"
dumb just dumb, here is his argument
p1- slavery is unconstitutional
p2- abortion is slavery
C- abortion is unonstitutional
That's a precise logical argument. You agreed with premise one. You agreed with the structure of his syllogism. you challenged him on premise 2 but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery. You merely said shit like "People don't mean abortion when they say slavery". That's not good enough to defeat the argument. You have to challenge his definition of slavery and it's not particularly hard to do. I mentioned a thought experiment when reading the debate out loud that had the potential to counter his definition or understanding of the definition. You are being stubborn and refusing to learn from your mistakes. WHich is sad, it means that you will be defeated with somebody who merely just steals Barney's arguments.
>Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid.
>Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
Oh, they failed now did they. You keep changing your story. First it was that I did not address Cons arguments. Then it was that addressing Con's points at all, which you call "red herring" was stupid. And now you say my rebuttals failed in an argument you said you do not agree with.
>You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
Again, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote.
>After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not.
As far as positive arguments go, I made plenty and can quote them if challenged. Point is, your not complying with the rules and your vote is unfair and should be revoked.
"Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide."
Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
"First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly."
Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
Do you see why I am taking such an issue with this? Not only does his reasoning not comply with the rules, but his understanding is based on false assumptions. He thinks he is supposed to vote on who won, not the criteria it is supposed to be on. He admits that his vote is based on something completely off-topic and is now showing he doesn't understand how rebuttals work.
""Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on."
You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
". I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments."
After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
>The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
No, the person who won is decided by the amount of votes they get at the end. The vote itself is supposed based on what the voter thought based on the Criteria provided. Meaning you have to vote based on the questions I outlined. No one "wins" until the vote ends.
>The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide.
>I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly.
Also to make it clear. I do not care if Wylted voted against me itself. Only that the vote complies with the rules. And while I understand that the subjective nature of what convinces a person can vary. I do not believe that it is subjective to give a reason for WHY you vote for either side and that vote has to be explained. Nor is it subjective on what Criteria you base that vote on.
But when someone says, "Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on.
I mean this reasoning is equal to saying, "Pro made a very good argument for why purple cannot be blue, and Con did not make a good argument for why purple is blue, but I am going to side with Con anyway."
That's not what the better argument vote is for. If WyIted believes Con made the better argument, then he should say so. In contrast, he said the opposite.
And lastly on a personal note. I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments. Since my argument did not change during the entire debate.
"Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments."
The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
"By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state."
The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
"Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea. "
I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
Understood. But I think that WyIted's comment is very alarming because he just proved he's not voting based on the criteria. Cause saying that Con made and unconvincing argument and then saying hes still voting for his favor anyway is a blatant disregard for the rules.
Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments.
By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state.
Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea.
Overall, the problem I have with what you said is that you are going against the rules. You are supposed to vote based on 5 categories. 1. Who presented the better argument? 2. Who provided better sources? 3. who wrote better, and 4. Who provided better conduct?
In contrast, you made a YouTube video, that doesn't explain anything to those who don't follow the link, including the moderators. And have now admitted that Con's argument did not convince you, but you voted against me anyway. If neither side convinced you, then you should not vote at all.
@whiteflame Now that we have heard what WyIted said, I believe his vote should be stricken since he has made it clear his not voting based on the criteria.
We can review the vote by listening to it. If the vote is reported, then I don't see the harm in listening to it instead of reading it so long as the reasoning is clear.
Also, while I appreciate the reminder, I did mean by this coming weekend. I am in the process of reading through this debate.
I have no problem ever shrinking my main points down for feedback from judges or anyone who cannot use youtube. I will ask that they ask for reasoning shortly after my judgement as my memory is shit and I could forget why I placed even a recent vote
Also you asked us to remind you to vote if you did not this weekend.
reasoning; Pro dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional . Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments.
I have a question, So, WyIted likes to make YouTube videos to explain when he votes. And while I have no problem with the videos, he makes himself. Should he not also have to write out his official reasoning for his vote so the Moderators can better be informed of the basis since all he provides is a link? I am just asking because we as the participants have no way of knowing if you moderators reviewed the video to see if his reasoning or way of decoding the vote complies with the rules of the site. Just a question.
"This debate was a long one",
agreed
"I commend both sides for putting a strong front."
I feel like this has been the most vulnerable I have ever seen Barney and american patriot still failed. I spit on both
"There were many times where I changed my position and agreed with the other side. "
terrible. I never agreed with either side.
"I can very well see other voters siding with Barney."
You will
This debate was a long one, it took a while to get through it. I commend both sides for putting a strong front. There were many times where I changed my position and agreed with the other side. I can very well see other voters siding with Barney.
I am reading through this, but if I haven't posted a vote by then, someone remind me this weekend to get on this.
I saw your post on the vote requests thread. I've been slacking a little bit on this site. I have a round of arguments due in a debate I'm participating in, and there are a couple other debates I've been asked to vote on but haven't done so yet. I'm going to write my arguments, then vote on the other debates I said I'd vote on, but after that, I promise you, I will vote on this one.
I'd prefer it if abortion did not occur (barring exceptional circumstances; those I'd also prefer did not occur, but we have to deal with the fact that they do).
I view it as generally a wrong, so I would personally not get an abortion. However...
1. Pineapple on pizza is far more often viewed as wrong, and nothing about it merits legal enforcement.
2. Abortion cannot be a pure wrong, because God is good, and God carried out literally countless abortions (not even talking about miscarriages).