Abortion should be illegal

(ME: "You seem to have difficulty understanding what you have read as it explain how you repeatedly make the same mistakes. " Pro: This declaration, Its just plain dishonest. You do not judge and decide this debate. Rather you participate in this debate and other -- they decide who wins or loses this debate. ) As you can tell by reading my statement that you are responding to, At no point did i say anything even related to me being a judge or even mention the debate. What i said was that you seem to have a problem understanding things that you have read, A point that you have just proven based on you strange response. In future debates it would benefit you to take some time to process your opponents responses before coming up with a counter argument, I think it would help you come up with a more accurate retort. (Me: "So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? ". Pro: Yes I would. ) Thank you for your honest answer, It shows just radical and ridiculous your views are. (Me: "You may note that nowhere in that statement does it say anything about the couple living together. " Pro: Absurd. Common law """marriage""" directly presumes that the couple live together. ) Yes, Common law marriage does presume that the couple is living together, But i never said anything about that couple living together, You inferred that part. It is another clear example of you reading something, But not comprehending it. (Me: "And it may come as a shock to you but many adults now a days are in perfectly normal long term monogamous relationships who do not feel the need to either live together or get married. " Pro:This behavior seems hedonistic by the way I argue in this debate. ) Another clear example of how radical and ridiculous your views are. (C/P: "In cases such as those the state cannot classify them as married, Not even common law marriage. So for the third time, You are wrong on this mater. " Pro: You presume yourself "A G A I N" as the judge which determines right vs wrong in this debate! Hello a debate its a debate over issues and NOT a dictate made by one side over the other. Duh! Marriage as a legal institution protects a couple. Divorce and Break Ups in human relations - - pretty common. A couple who have shared a life "together" for several years, If they break up how do they divide the shared communal assets of the now defunct union? A girl friend can not go to a Court and demand paternity over children. ) I am not presuming anything, I am simply stating facts of state law. The way two non married people divide things up is handled the way a married couples divorce is handled, Legally in court or through an arbitrator. I would have thought that fact would be obvious, Just like it is obvious that in a separation, Custody of a child would go to a parent. I honestly don't know why you brought that up, But at least now you know. (Me: " This is why late term abortions in the last trimester are allowed when the fetus/baby is no longer viable. " Pro: Duh! This statement proves nothing. If the baby is dead, There exists no issue what so ever that its best to remove the dead baby from the mothers' womb rather than have it rot within her! Duh! ) Judging by your response it seems that you don't know the definition of viable, It does not mean that "the baby is dead" as you so put it. It means that the baby is alive at the moment but is not expected to survive long outside of the womb on its own. The baby may be kept alive with machines but the law allows a mother to terminate the pregnancy, In case you were wondering terminating the pregnancy does mean killing the baby in utero. (Me: "You also pointed out that abortions should be illegal when a fetus looks more anatomically human" Pro: That's correct! Finally you have said a rational statement. That's exactly my point! Law its not the Tablets of Stone which Moses brought down from Sinai. Law its a living evolving process. ) So your point is that the legality of abortions should be dictated on the appearance of the fetus and not its viability or any other more significant reasoning? Not only does that contradict your statement on the previous paragraph, It also seems reminiscent of the monstrous infanticide practices that have occurred in history where societies would kill babies who were born with deformities. So congratulations your ideals are inline with those of the Nazi's. (Me: "Thank you for posting that brief summery of Roe Vs Wade, As it lends to my argument as to why abortions should be legal and are. You seem to have a knack for (figuratively) punching yourself in the face and continuing on as if nothing has happened. " Pro: The 1973 Roe vs. Wade SC ruling can not just ignore it and pretend it never happened. This ostrich head in sand stupidity, Its just plain absurd. ) I am not ignoring the 1973 Roe vs. Wade SC ruling, It did happen and it ruled that abortions were legal. Last i checked that was the point i am making. (Me: Hedonism - " It is the accepted definition used in sociology which intern is the study of the development, Structure, And functioning of human society. " Pro: You keep behaving like as if ideas exist as Catholic Dogmas! Bunk. ) I honestly don't know how to respond to that, It isn't even a coherent sentence. (Me: "U. S. Government (Congress) is not allowed to make any law (or criminalize something) based on any religious establishment. " Utter and total hogwash! The separation of church and State has come into conflict on Evolution vs Creationism, For just one obvious historical example. ) Did you even bother googling the supreme court case concerning Evolution vs Creationism? I will save you the trouble, "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, Creation science must also be taught. The Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion". So my statement is not "hogwash", But rather legally 100% correct. This shows president for why your hedonism argument falls flat on its face. (Me: "So your argument that abortions should be illegal because it would lead to "hedonism" as defined by you according to the bible, Would be promptly thrown out of court. " That's your private opinion. Call me a prick but i just love to burst your self righteous conceited self opinionated arrogance. You do not speak for all US Judges and all US Courts. ) I will refer you and everyone else to United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578. It is not my opinion that your argument would not hold up in court, It is the ruling of seven out of the nine supreme court judges. You may think that i am a "self righteous conceited self opinionated" and "arrogant", But really I am just a person who accepted your challenge and uses law and facts to back up my points. I also do not consider you a prick, But i do think you are a tad bit temperamental when someone challenges you beliefs. (Me: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and [breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, And the man became a living being]. Based on this one could say that until a baby breathes outside the womb it is not considered living, " Pro: Classic interpretation of your quoted verse has the traditional interpretation that God breathed the Spirit of His Name into clay, Transforming that clump of earth into a living soul. Where does the baby in the womb get the air it requires to live? From the air breathed in and out by its mother; the gases exchange by means of the placenta. ) True the mother does transfer oxygen from her lungs to the child by way of the umbilical cord, However this does not constitute "breathing" on the baby's part. Breathing is the process of respiration, During which air is inhaled into the lungs through the mouth or nose due to muscle contraction and then exhaled due to muscle relaxation. While this seems like a frivolous point to make it just goes to show how ridiculous it is to base supreme court decisions on religious documents since there are so many differing opinions one could gather even within the same religion. (Me: "But I would rather not use religion and instead base my arguments on established law and facts. " Pro: Your skewed absurd notion of the 5 Books of Moses as limited to a religious idea. . . Beyond stupid. The 5 Books of Moses functioned as the working Constitution ie basic law of the Davidic Kingdom of ancient Israel. Only in the Middle Ages did the vile church pervert the T'NaCH literature as something that's strictly limited to religious faith and belief. ) No offense, But the religious text that were used as the basis for laws of a nation that hasn't existed for over 2000 years is irrelevant in a discussion about a medical procedure that is and should be legal in today's society. (Me: "If it were me I would have said "Abortions After the First Trimester Should be Illegal", And then in my opening statement listed all the caveats where I thought it was acceptable, Before talking about the issue with hedonism. " Pro: YOU did not initiate this debate but rather agreed to join the debate that I started. Therefore you do not set the parameters of how I debate. ) You are right i did not initiate this debate and i do not set the parameters. So lets look at the debate according to your parameters. You are arguing FOR making abortions illegal. I am arguing AGAINST making abortions illegal. I know it might be hard for you to keep track, But at this point in the debate it should be obvious to everyone including you that the supreme court, Myself, And surprisingly even YOU agree that abortions SHOULD NOT be made illegal. Thank you