Implausible Abortion Arguments

Author: CoolApe
Abortion

Posts

Total: 64
#31
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@John_C_87
abortion is by United State Constitution unlawful
That's odd seeing how it's protected by the declaration of independence under the inalienable rights clause, along with both the the 13th and 14th amendments.


A women is by United States Constitution an ambassador
I have read said constitution, and have never seen anything which even remotely implies such talk of female specific medical issues... Please give a direct quote from it which states pregnant women are "ambassadors" to their bodies?

...

I hope this is misplaced, but I'm instantly reminded of the Christian sects who claim Jesus hates gays, and any book (such as the Bible) which disagrees with this should be burnt for disagreeing with the bible (not that they've read it, but their cult leaders did and told them that's what it says).


#32
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@FLRW
Should we really be eating eggs? 
We ought to be vegetarian, even if the law will probably never reflect that.

And yes, I'm a hypocrite here, I love the taste of chicken too much... Even more so when the waiter brings me a raw egg, since I can't distinguish the developmental difference between the two. 😁
#33
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
That's odd seeing how it's protected by the declaration of independence under the inalienable rights clause, along with both the the 13th and 14th amendments.
Being a United State Constitutional Right is not argued only of ratifide into the United States Constitution. Pregnancy abortion is not a declaration of Independence and is in fact alienable as described in the as pro-life and pro-choice. There is no immunity in a Declaration of Idepoendence. To order a stop to pregnancy by medical process is an admission of command shared by the the male. The fact ist is Female- specific amputation that is a better, new, and clear Constitutional Declaration of Independence where the immigration process attached to birth separates male and female rolls in the process of termination.

It is not impossible to create and see a United StateConstitutional Right outside the United States Constitution. By fact, by Law ofNature all United States Constitutional Right begin outside the American Constitution when not ratified as part of Constitutional law. We debate and have access to two completely differentforms of law 1.) Is criminal law. 2.) Is United State Constitutional Right.What you are to look at is the roll of “ambassador” in Article II, Section II, Clause II, of AmericanUnited States Constitution. It is by a law of nature the complete truth inregard to any otherwise appointed as united state ambassador by justice to establish independence ofall women. A United State Constitutional Right does not depend on crime likie criminal law and itsmethods of filing as grievance. Meaning no license by state is required to pratice the establishment they these Rights are derived by we the people.

There are a couple of additions to the United StatesConstitution that are required to correct the 13 and 14 Amendments, correctthem as appropriate forms of legislation. "Congress shall have power toenforce this article by appropriate legislation." The Amendmentsclearly do not say Congress shall have powers of immunity to enforce articlesof inappropriate legislation and are repetitive making the principle of themholding a factual united state questionable having needed to be repeated inother Amendments.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
#34
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
I have read said constitution, and have never seen anything which even remotely implies such talk of female specific medical issues... Please give a direct quote from it which states pregnant women are "ambassadors" to their bodies?
The child of any and all fertile woman bear is not a citizen of a nation, and it is by Law of Nature she is assigned as its ambassador, no one else. Executive orders overstep as the Oval Office, nor Congress have emancipated all unborn children as citizen before birth. 

Whose Appointment are not herein otherwise provided for. The law of Nature has provided for this appointment and this appontment only. The are abassadors not to thier body but to the child which waits for immigration created by birth. Also a Law of Nature.
#35
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@John_C_87
Nice word salad.

The are abassadors not to thier body but to the child which waits for immigration created by birth. Also a Law of Nature.
As your statements are not within it, with the closest being related to the president being able to appoint officials for various offices, I worry about your grasp of the human race and how it differs from things like real estate.
#36
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
As your statements are not within it, with the closest being related to the president being able to appoint officials for various offices, I worry about your grasp of the human race and how it differs from things like real estate.
So, you understand a declaration of Independence, a right to place all women in a place of equality between all other women in a condition of their creation using oath and series of type truths?

There are connections to justice which have already been established by both criminal and Constitutional law. The assignment of a women as ambassador to the child who isaging inside only her, the child who is not a citizen of any nation until after serviving birth, is beyond criminal law and the child cannot be charged with the murder of the mother. Article II, Section II, clause II describes an ambassador can be appointed by other ways in law, not just by President, Senate, or Congress, the mother is a diplomat, an ambassador assigned by the laws of nature to the child or children. 

Your worry is overthe use of law which connects crime with criminals, not my understanding of how to create and establish a larger state of the Constitutional union with right, and we the people. All people in one state of the union are the indication of the most powerful Constitutional Rights there are whereas criminal law always and forever has two states of the union of varying numbers victum and accused. The issue of jurisdiction of criminal law as a State of the union between the people and area  of property, land is organized crime described with punishable consequences in the legislation of criminal law itself. A woman is being held as a Presadera in accordance with American United States Constitution ratified or not. 

Your worry is over the use of law which connects crime with criminals not my understandngs of how to create and establish a larger state of the Constitutional union with right, and we the people, all poeple the indication of the most powerful Constitutional Rights there are. The issue that jurisdiction of law as a State of the union between the people and land face is orginized crime becuase it is described with punishable consiquences in the legilsation of criminal law itself upon conviction. Thus the United State wrong of a order to abort, abortion, pregnancy abortion.  A women can be held as a "Presadera" in accordance with American United States Constitution ratifide or not. Leaving the clear question something could have been achieved and why was it not?
 
#37
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@John_C_87
What are you copy/pasting from?
#38
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
What are you copy/pasting from?

What I write as a reply.
Also Article II, Section II, Clause II of the American Constitution, a brief part of its Preamble, and the last clause of the 13 and 14th Amendment which are identical meaning the united state that was created is in question if it is repeated so soon after it was writen as United States Constitutional Right.
Topic's author
#39
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 87
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
-->
@Barney
Since I don't believe every sperm is sacred, I prioritize personhood as measured by a mind.
Pro-life side in general does not think a sperm or ovum is a person.


Granted, people on the pro-life side don't think a mind should matter
Well yes. This is a logical necessity for pro-lifers who believe a person begins at conception.

I think mind argument works well. I don't think most people consider disconnecting brain-dead patients murder, nor do they consider them as living "persons" anymore.

A fetus's brain likely has some brain activity going on, so it can't be classified as brain dead. Prior stages with no brain development of the sort should be considered brain dead.

 To me a newborn is not a person.
This I believe is wrong, but I won't go into it. 

Semantically speaking though, I think its fine to refer to any stage of development as a person. People do this kind of thing when they call their pregnancy a baby. A human being's life also starts at conception. It doesn't make sense to stop referring to someone's initial beginning as human being. (Note baby, human being all imply person).

However, I don't think semantics necessarily wins all arguments.

The fetus/embryo/(input early stage) is a clump of cells and not a human being
I've never actually used that one. See above the the personhood discussion... I don't consider the coincidence of human DNA to be important without a mind.
I didn't have enough characters, but I attempted a little discussion of this in a recent debate.
Yeah. The banned TWS member made arguments like this without placing emphasize on the mind, so I decided to bring this up. 






#40
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@CoolApe
It's easier said than done to come up with a good concept of personhood. Finding a coherent concept of personhood is a philosophical exercise and a rabbit hole.
Bingo. I remember an old Facebook boomer-type meme that I saw several years ago... it had a picture of Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka in that condescending pose and went something like "Oh, you think life begins at birth? Tell more about the magical properties of the birth canal." Cringy as it was, the dumb meme had a point.

We have many different ideas of what constitute life, all but one of them being arbitrary. Some say after birth, a baby begins to develop self-consciousness, and that is the deciding factor. Others say it's when the heartbeat begins, taking the term "lifeblood" to its most literal sense. And still others say it's when the human shape develops, at which then the child fulfills the basic taxonomy requirements to be considered human. And yet, still others say it's at conception, when the whole process of human growth begins.

To bring any objectivity into this, I assert that we need to understand the natural concept of life by looking into what the female body considers worthy of protection. This is why I believe conception is objectively the beginning of human life. From the moment of conception, that beginning of development is detected by the female body, which then nurtures the fertilized egg until birth. A natural criteria for a natural concept.
#41
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@CoolApe
I think mind argument works well. I don't think most people consider disconnecting brain-dead patients murder, nor do they consider them as living "persons" anymore.
A fetus's brain likely has some brain activity going on, so it can't be classified as brain dead. Prior stages with no brain development of the sort should be considered brain dead.
A medical patient with brain activity is not in position to be the cause of death of only women.Period. A medical patient is not on the way to becoming a citizen of a nation, we are on the way out of any obligation to a nation, a non-citizen.

Pro-life side in general does not think a sperm or ovum is a person.
Both Pro-Life, ProChoice are additional self-incrimination to the order to abort pregnancy. Leaving the public to be accessories to a public description of murder as the cause, the reason for a termination is a violation of criminal law for invading the women's medical privacy. 

This I believe is wrong, but I won't go into it.  Semantically speaking though, I think its fine to refer to any stage of development as a person. People do this kind of thing when they call their pregnancy a baby. A human being's life also starts at conception. It doesn't make sense to stop referring to someone's initial beginning as human being. (Note baby, human being all imply person). However, I don't think semantics necessarily wins all arguments.

Overmany years I have addressed this principle in many ways, however the fact remains life begins at ovulation and at the creation of sperm, then after the beginning life is extended by conception. The magic of the practice of criminal law misdirection. The argument in America was over Female United States Constitutional Right and the question to answer in truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth is why the female request of United States Constitutional Rights fell short. Let us first look at how both the 13th and 14th Amendments share a declaration of Independence from a Constitutional Amendment not a Constitutional Article. The clause reads "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." It is clearly speaking of Congresses legislation of criminal law and not Congresses ratification of Constitutional Right. Now let’s look at how Pregnancy Abortionstarted as a criminal law, is this what set it to always and forever to be anargument of criminal law and not United States Constitutional Right for females. Legislators of Congresses attempt at enforcing criminal law and not create United States Constitutional Right. Again, criminal law is a practicesold by state licensing in most all nations with social liberties of Justice.

The implausible abortion argument is Pregnancy abortion as criminal law and can never be a United States Constitutional Right no matter the amount of crime enforcement, it is not in the same category of law as a United State Constitutional Right. As fact, as Constitutional Right there has never been a pregnancy abortion in the United States of America all terminations of immigration by birth have allbeen Female-specific amputations.

#42
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Mharman
We have many different ideas of what constitute life, all but one of them being arbitrary. Some say after birth, a baby begins to develop self-consciousness, and that is the deciding factor. Others say it's when the heartbeat begins, taking the term "lifeblood" to its most literal sense. And still others say it's when the human shape develops, at which then the child fulfills the basic taxonomy requirements to be considered human. And yet, still others say it's at conception, when the whole process of human growth begins.
The point is citizenship can start at birth and does not start at conception at all by criminal law, life continues. United States Constitutional Right and criminal law do not agree and the legal criminal argument between the two sides can be profitable.  It is people, it is our parents, it is our grandparents that have come to American to chase the dream, though it falls upon the people who as posterity hold not just law but United States Constitutional Right from the fringes of nightmare.
#43
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@John_C_87
There is no legal construct that can define humanity for us. For my definition, I look at the Word of God, and the biological features and functions of the people He created.

#44
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@CoolApe
Legal Argument 

(1) Murder is the taking of an innocent person’s life.
(2) According to the law, a pregnancy is not recognized as a person. 
(3) Therefore, abortion is not murder.

Premise 2 is arbitrary.
I agree.

What if the law is wrong?
It usually is.

Then, the conclusion must also be wrong. 
Not necessarily. You would have to establish that abortion is murder.

If everyone wants a good argument with this reasoning, then debaters should agree on a specific definition of personhood that the law can recognize. 

The law argument is circular reasoning and irrelevant until the debaters agree on a logical definition of personhood.

Personhood Argument

It's easier said than done to come up with a good concept of personhood. Finding a coherent concept of personhood is a philosophical exercise and a rabbit hole.

Some people think viability is the answer, which I’m unconvinced about. 

Many premature births require medical assistance to survive. Requiring medical assistance isn’t the typical idea of viability, which one thinks.

A healthy, full-term baby fits this ideal concept of viability since it can survive without medical assistance. However, most people couldn’t agree with this extreme case of viability since many consider abortion in the third-trimester murder.

However, medical viability depends on the capabilities of advanced medical care, which once didn’t exist and could improve in the future.
Neither the personhood nor the viability argument matters. As you pointed out, they're arbitrary. If you select your definitions in concordance with consensus, then you've merely aligned yourself with the results of a referendum which are no different from those which are produced by law.

The fetus/embryo/(input early stage) is a clump of cells and not a human being

Many people think that a pregnancy is a group of cells that is no more a human being than a foot or hand. However, the pregnancy at conception is a human organism and continues to be the same human organism when it dies. On the other hand, a clump of cells does not constitute a human organism and can’t grow into one. 

Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that pregnancy is a human being at the initial stage of their life and continues to be for their existence.
This has always been and will always be a nonsensical argument (for some of the reasons you pointed out.) The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. Not only is this true by virtue of its genome, but also by definition of human development. I can only guess this platitude is argued in service to some perceived mitigation it provides for those who do actually believe that abortion is murder. But this platitude serves to elucidate an inescapable inconsistency/contradiction among the "pro-choice" camp.
#45
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Athias
Not necessarily. You would have to establish that abortion is murder.
No, we can just prove abort is an order to officially stop,then prove abort is connected to the termination of a pregnancy, with a connection of a birth by the word abortion to women, by act of conception to men. Once that is done abortion becomes aadmission to a use of lethal force, not murder.

The legislators, by writing legislation with criminal law, the people never had a way of knowing if murder had taken place as there is only a crime involved in establishing justice and never a established right. The victim is not a citizen to be charged with attempted murder of the mother turning the lethal force into self-defense as publicly claimed often. Even though the a as United State of Constitution.  The admission to the use of lethal force can be used against us in a court of law, then becoming murder, indenture dservitude, or even slavery by conviction. It is the way an admission to a possible criminal law is collected which can be subject to criminal law, this as a litteral form of organized crime or legalmal practice. By United State Constitutional Right in connection to established justice linking the whole process as well with the RICO Act. With whom does the order of stop officially start? With whom doesthe official order to stop end?

Question, is it implausable argument as women had sought Constitutional Right having been and are sold criminal law instead.
#46
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Mharman
There is no legal construct that can define humanity for us. For my definition, I look at the Word of God, and the biological features and functions of the people He created.
There are legal constructs of human citizenship.  He?
#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Most commercially produced eggs are infertile, so I see no problem.
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
I look at the word of God.


GOD never said anything...Or prove that it did.

People just made up stuff.

Which is generally the way.


GOD supposedly gave some bloke a pile of stones.

Was that the forerunner of the tablet.

Such was omniscience in a paperless Universe.
#49
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@CoolApe
Pro-life side in general does not think a sperm or ovum is a person.
Every sperm is sacred is mainly a hyperbole. There is the implicit point within it that a fertilized egg has more in common with sperm than it does a newborn; which brings to mind the classic trolly problem of saving children or fertilized eggs, that no one would save the eggs demonstrates that said eggs are not equal to people.

One bad argument I used to make, is that pro-life people would oppose the government forcing them to care for refugees… while true, it falls into the not even wrong fallacy.

Probably my best point on the topic is simply that slavery is bad. Sadly at the very least leadership in the pro-life movement disagrees… Thankfully in the USA we have protections against that enshrined in our constitution.
#50
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
Probably my best point on the topic is simply that slavery is bad. Sadly at the very least leadership in the pro-life movement disagrees… Thankfully in the USA we have protections against that enshrined in our constitution.
No, we do not have protection against slavery. The process was made a power of Congress upon duly conviction this means admitting to a crime or even the first ruling in a courts order of criminal law is/was enough to place a anyone as slave. Slavery had been a product of War, a slave at one time in history was only a P.O.W. sold into private hands or governing force. It still is. The United States of America had made changed that by ratification of an Amendment may not be appropriate nor best state of the union in United State of Constitutional Right.


Section 1.
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.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When reading the 13th Amendment it is clear how the words except as a punishment of criminal law can be confusing.
#51
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@John_C_87
When reading the 13th Amendment it is clear how the words except as a punishment of criminal law can be confusing.
Having a uterus is not a criminal offense.
#52
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
Having a uterus is not a criminal offense.
Not yet......but we debate plausible abortion, and this only takes place without influence on government  when male/female couples do not copulate, at least without State license. The term free love from the 1960s has a United State Constitution contradiction which is the difference between a liberty taken to copulate and a free act of copulation. A factual President or Presadera would address the addition to the 1st Amendment as Article and Section to describe clear right between free and cost.

Criminal law already has described orginized crime as a danger and threat to the people. United States Constitutional Right is not a form of orginized crime like criminal legilsation in the literal sense. Falsely admiting or being accused to a crime can be wrong the order to abort brings about the idea of guilt by association of that wrong. This raises questions about the united state created by criminal law and the use of only the practice in laws of the land, as in the process of immigration. The matter is focust on United States Constitutinal right of citizenship by birth. This is a massive United State of Law.

A United States Constitutional right is Female-specific amputation as a state of the union with immigration and citizenship of a newborn. The idea of when life begins is not a matter of Constitution right for the people who come to America, they are not only legal or illegal immigrants. The American Constitution also hold then as ambassadors of foreign powers and Rights of constitutional law change becuase of this fact. People simply may not be able to say in a United States with Constitutional Right, as citizen, by birth, why or why not they are an America, alone. The United States Constitutional law only describes birth in a relationship to established justice in become a citizen.
#53
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Barney
By the way thank you for having this descussion like all other views here I find the points helpful in finding direction.
#54
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@John_C_87
No, we can just prove abort is an order to officially stop,then prove abort is connected to the termination of a pregnancy, with a connection of a birth by the word abortion to women, by act of conception to men. Once that is done abortion becomes aadmission to a use of lethal force, not murder.

The legislators, by writing legislation with criminal law, the people never had a way of knowing if murder had taken place as there is only a crime involved in establishing justice and never a established right. The victim is not a citizen to be charged with attempted murder of the mother turning the lethal force into self-defense as publicly claimed often. Even though the a as United State of Constitution.  The admission to the use of lethal force can be used against us in a court of law, then becoming murder, indenture dservitude, or even slavery by conviction. It is the way an admission to a possible criminal law is collected which can be subject to criminal law, this as a litteral form of organized crime or legalmal practice. By United State Constitutional Right in connection to established justice linking the whole process as well with the RICO Act. With whom does the order of stop officially start? With whom doesthe official order to stop end?

Question, is it implausable argument as women had sought Constitutional Right having been and are sold criminal law instead.
This isn't legible.
#55
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Athias
This isn't legible.
Maybe it has been scrambled so you cannot understand it the queation is, do you need to know?
We do not have to prove abortion is murder, we proven abortion is an admission to murder, is the admission illegal yes it has been proven by the supreme court.

We prove United State Constitutional Right such as Female-specific amputation. We do not have to ratify the United State Constitutional Right only describe as large a group of females, in the best way as a United State Constitutional Rights so it can be said to be a possible task. 
#56
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
Hip hop and rap are not legible yet understood and people enjoy it.
#57
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@John_C_87
Could you please clarify, in layman's terms, what your argument is, exactly?
#58
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@Mharman
Good question Mharman.
The principle of pregnancy abortionpresented as a United States Constitutional Right. It was found in a court oflaw to be unconstitutional.
#59
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@John_C_87
Well that’s just a fact that the court found abortion was not a constitutional right. What is your take on the issue and why?
#60
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
Well that’s just a fact that the court found abortion was not a constitutional right.
I agreed with both State and Federal Supreme Courts, unconstitutional and not constitutional are the same United State. Adding the creation and description of a more perfect United States Constitutional Right is made as a complete united state of law with the words Female-specific amputation as American Constitutional common defense.  Connecting all women who are fertile with immigration created in such a way as only made by pregnancy and birth.

What is your take on the issue and why?
Outside of being an issue on my bucket list.

There are two types of law in America. One: criminal law where a crime is written as a wrong that is made. Two: A United State Constitutional Right which is a self-evident truth created with a combination of whole truths which describe the largest connectionand most perfect right which is, or is  not adhere to by all women. This purpose of Right is to declare all women as created as equal before established justice and American Constitutional Preamble by their creator, filed grievance.

--> @ Mharman