Instigator / Con
12
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#946
Abortion: Constitutional or Not
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
I believe that Roe v. Wade was not Constitutional for it was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers or at any other time.
Round 1
I am aware that supposedly Roe v. Wade was based on the "right to privacy" I would like CON to explain what the "right to privacy" entails and where it is found in the Constitution.
You are the one saying it directly opposes the spirit and/or specific clauses of the constitution. The BoP is on you, Pro.
Round 2
From Mark Levin's book Men in Black
"Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted by our people nor enacted by our legislators-not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973." Ronald Reagan, 1983
Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy also included a new constitutional right to abortion. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general "right to privacy" any more than you will find a right to abortion-and for good reason: It's not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples-from murder to incest to rape and other crimes
The entire Constitution has two core principles (and these principles are why the left-wing of America hate it while the right-wing love it):
- Freedom matters more than harmony and safety.
- Survival of the fittest is an absolute, survival of the elected officials is prone to more corruption than survival of the fittest among the electorate.
Both of these things would lead one to be a brutally pro-choice individual.
Let's explore why I conclude this.
The first amendment fundamentally is about the ability to say brutally harsh things no mater who gets offended, even to the point of suicide. It is on a surface level simply about religious expression but even then is about the very same thing as my 'principle 1'.
The second amendment is about enabling the people to have the capacity to kill one another (Since 1982, 74 Percent Of [American] Mass Shooters Obtained Their Guns Legally by Nov 2018). It firstly risks the mass shootings but secondly an argument domestically can end in a dead body much easier when all have guns but the Constitution clearly says it's worth it if the people can fight their government.
The third amendment is about making the people feel as free as their military figures and as entitled to housing and control over areas as their military personnel.
The fourth amendment entitles many dangerous types; such as your local pedophile, gang leader or terrorist, to be entitled to privacy and is the primary thing that Obama's NSA violated as accused by Snowden.
The fifth amendment, much like the fourth, will severely protect a severely dangerous criminal from getting caught and is portrayed as worth that payoff in exchange for the benefit of a relatively free populace of America.
Should I keep going? The entire ethos of the constitution is about brutal freedom even if it ends up with brutal consequences.
Round 3
Forfeited
No doubt about it.
Round 5
Forfeited
He gave up
Hi RM - thank you for the feedback.
Your opponent said it wasn’t written down in the constitution - this is accurate. You didn’t refute that point; even though I know (given the constitution) that it doesn’t matter. As I don’t bring my knowledge of the constitution to the debtate - his argument was dropped by you, and as you didn’t refute
It - a TR judge must accept it as true.
Your point was unrefuted, but was also terrible - stating that because other unrelated things are accepted - this can be considered too. This is a terrible point that I came close to rejecting on the grounds of inherent warrant - and that if I accept your argument I can’t tell if the resolution is affirmed or not, as most of your argument seemed tangential.
I offered my specific critique of the legal aspects - in order to potentially help you grow as a debater, and realize more reasonable angles of attack.
Tabula Rasa, my fucking ass.
OF COURSE it was not constitutional. Nothing is constitutional. the SCOTUS really just votes for whatever party controls the court. Especially now, where after ruining Kavanaugh's life they think the SCOTUS will EVER vote for them. Really stupid
Con not Pro********