The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Should abortion be legal?in Politics

Vaulk

@Applesauce

If a law stands on hypocrisy or creates a double standard...then it ought to be changed to align it with justice  or completely removed if it cannot be.

John_C_87

Yes you did give definitions and codes thank you Applesauce. 

People can also make admissions of guilt without the ability to understand them as they are made publicly. The people by law are trying to create a state where all admission of this criminal guilt, for this one criminal act is to be seen as legal without judicial separation from the public protection as there was a good chance they would have lost the trial. No limits on the admission to officially stopping life are ever really made, it is a plea deal cut for the woman’s admission of public guilt, that deal has been put on all woman including underage girls not just the actual criminal. The fact remains and admission to a crime homicide is left unregulated. Allowing that and other crime loose to be held against the public as a threat at any time. As they vote and become documented on official record associate them as accessory to homicide, perjury, and Fraud. Being unsure of which crime of homicide, which fraud, what lie, the courts never tests  does not make it legal. Not regulating the other crimes by title selection does not make it legal,  the crime to hard to gather evidence for is not legal.

All female specific Amputation does is change the structure of the self-incrimination on any admission of guilt, so it is not necessary, a pubic being asked to take part in a public admitted murder was never necessary. This was civil malpractice and an act of Civil War made against judicial separation.

Abort is describing one crime, the population may not understand the wording of the admission as it describes and details that crime. If the description is known not to be true, and is given publicly that would be a different crime all together.  When any admission of guilt is left unregulated, and people are made accessories that is yet another crime. The idea that the crimes are too complex to be tried in court, this complication does not ever make them legal, it simply leaves them unregulated till the crime is discovered, and explained.

MayCaesar

@Vaulk

Laws built on hypocrisy are not necessarily bad laws, and their validity should be judged solely by how well they follow the law doctrine and not how they were constructed. 

"If a Woman can choose what happens with her body and subsequently abortions are legal...then how does the law criminalize infanticide?"
An infant is not a parasite in the woman's body any more, it is an independent creature.

"If Jane Doe gets pregnant from consensual intercourse and two weeks later her boyfriend slips an abortion pill into her drink causing the pregnancy to be terminated..."
I do not think it should be classified as infanticide, but it is something that affects the woman's body without her consent, hence can be classified as poisoning.

"So if "It's my body" is legitimate justification for abortion then how does the law prosecute those who have terminated a pregnancy with infanticide when the Mother takes no issue with it?"
It should not. Consider this. Someone walks up to me on the street and beats me down - but I am a masochist and I enjoy the beating. I take no issue with this, so I do not sue the person, so the person is not prosecuted.
However, just like the mother in question, I reserve the right to sue the person for an assault - and the person will be prosecuted then.

"If "It's not a living being, it's just a cluster of cells" is justification for abortion...then how does killing a pregnant woman equal double homicide?"
It should not be.

"These are the problems that arise when opening the door for abortions...you cannot logically or even legally open the possibilities without creating a conflicting issue that doesn't make any sense and doesn't conform to rationale."
The concept of bodily autonomy trumping the concept of the value of abstract human life should resolve all the arising conflicts easily. 

Applesauce

@John_C_87

Aside for specific development limits, abortion is not a crime.  If you can find the code that claims it is, that might help.  I don't believe abortion is a legally defined crime when done in compliance within the limits set forth by the specific state, therefore there's nothing to admit to.

John_C_87

Vaulk

It is a long standing Congressional declaration to gender related world Civil War. The base line objective was to promote democracy over United State of Constitution throughout Nations. Like I stated the people are arguing an Admission of guilt that is then plea bargained by arguing the admission as being a lie.

To break the unintentional fraud the effects all people they do not argue the type homicide that is/was the focus of the admission. The focus of united criminal action is to remove the self-incrimination shared as state which puts the rights of United State constitutional voters at risk.

John_C_87

Vaulk

It is a long standing Congressional declaration to gender related world Civil War. The base line objective could have been to promote democracy instead of United State of Constitution throughout Nations. Like I stated the people are arguing an Admission of guilt that is then plea bargained by arguing the admission as a lie. Life already having a double standard by Medicine along with a violation of Oath to appointment.

To break the unintentional fraud the effects all people they do not argue the type homicide that is/was the focus of the admission. The focus of united criminal action is to remove the self-incrimination shared as state which puts the rights of United State constitutional voters at risk.

The problem is that the declaration of War has now effect great deal of people who require a Presidential, or Prasederial pardon for the woman who have admitted the homicide and those who associated themselves with the crime. As this is the way insure that the right of vote can never be at risk. If all woman as a united State care to still make this admission of guilt after judicial pardon process takes place it is their Constitutional right.

I would say it is nothing, and ignore it. Yet the issue of seatbelt laws where never going to amount as public fine either.

Theocrat

Abortion is illegal (King Jesus says so) and those who perform, procure and allow an abortion should be put to death as the only just penalty for their vile crime.

John_C_87

The important thing to remember here is that by United State set in Constitution all woman are being cleared of a public admission of guilt by using a witness observation of Female Specific Amputation. All woman are not cleared of the possible homicide that has been described by the United States made by the word abortion. The homicide that is being admitted by abortion may not actually be real. It is the wording used which is say publicly a woman is officially really taking something that is known to have been officially stared and is by her control terminating it.

piloteer

"@Vaulk ;

You make a valiant  effort in trying to undermine the legality and morality of abortion rights, but I remain unconvinced. The unborn fetus is a part of the womans body until it leaves her body. She can choose to terminate it just the same as a cancerous lump. Your "infanticide" argument you got going on up there, at best, only serves to convince me that laws governing infanticide should be redefined. But, your argument is impotent when it comes to convincing me that the fetus is subject to judicial legal decision. That is why the whole "when life begins" argument falls short when it's put up against legal scrutiny. 

When someone kills a woman who is bearing a child, which in turn kills the child, that person has imposed on the womans right to life, and her right to make a decision on the fetus. That decision belongs to her, and her alone. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, (legally) it's no different than her choosing to cut off all of her hair, or removing a cancerous tumor, because they are all a part of her body. Obviously, abortion is very different from cutting off all your hair. But the choice to deal with the emotions and physical pain of child birth, and the financial decisions of raising children, or the emotions that come with abortion, belong to the women themselves. Not the public. 

Your gripe seems to be with the definition of infanticide, not abortion.

Theocrat

DrCereal said:

KJVPrewrather said:

@DrCereal abortion is murder. People in general have the right to live. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, have your tubes removed, or don't have sex. It is really that simple.

You say it's murder because you classify the zygote as something that's the moral equivalent of an actual entity. This is not the case for all people so some don't see it as murder.

Truth does not change because you dont like it.

Applesauce

@piloteer

the living thing inside her is only half of her dna, the other half is the man's.  States have limits for abortions, so your claim that "The unborn fetus is a part of the womans body until it leaves her body." is not a legal fact and laws actually are antithetical to your statement.

piloteer

"@Applesauce ;

My argument wasn't a legal argument, it was a moral argument. It is certainly a scientific and logical fact. States may have "limits" on abortion, but it's difficult to make a legal or moral argument to outright ban abortion. Whatever "limits" there may be, I invite you to share them with us, and see if they can topple the morality and legality of my argument. 

Applesauce

piloteer said:

"@Applesauce ;

My argument wasn't a legal argument, it was a moral argument. It is certainly a scientific and logical fact. States may have "limits" on abortion, but it's difficult to make a legal or moral argument to outright ban abortion. Whatever "limits" there may be, I invite you to share them with us, and see if they can topple the morality and legality of my argument. 

it's not really possible to topple an opinion when the definition of the important subject words can't be defined to everyone's agreement.
here's your restrictions by states
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html
explain to me the morality of killing a 36 week old baby, rather than delivering it alive and having it adopted out, what is the benefit to killing it?  Whether the baby inter utero is alive or dead, it is delivered in same manner.  If the baby is alive it is killed while still inside the woman then delivered dead.  The action of birth can not be avoided at this age.

piloteer

"@Applesauce ;

My apologies for such a late rebuttal to your argument, but you do make a valid point which I believe deserves a valid rebuttal. Plus, I've been "going ham" at work, so I don't have too much debate time. But, here goes.

 Leave us not paint a picture of late term abortion as an "abortion culture". 92% of abortions are done before 14 weeks. 96% are done before 20 weeks. Only 1.6 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks, and of those (53%), more than half are needed because of a legitimate risk to the mother or the baby if the pregnancy goes full term. Unfortunately, there are some women who make a decision to terminate at a really late stage in pregnancy, but if we ban late term pregnancy, we put the other half of the women at risk. One could make the argument that it should be up to a doctor to decide whether the pregnancy can or cannot be terminated so late in the pregnancy, but we'll run into two issues here. The first issue is with the doctor. If the doctor makes a wrong decision, his/her patients (mother, or child, or both)could end up dead, and beyond the emotional stress of that wrong decision, there would also be legal ramifications as well. Then, there's the issue of forcefully taking the fetus, and any decisions made on the fetus,  out of the ownership of the woman and leaving it up to somebody else. Furthermore, most of the time, the reason women need to wait so long to have a late term abortion is because in most cases, you can't find out if the mother or the baby will be at risk until 17 weeks. Then, most of them are told that they have to wait a certain number of weeks more, to even reach a healthy stage to have an abortion. Making late term or partial birth abortions illegal, put most women who have them at risk. 

The legal or moral argument against late term or partial birth abortions are not as cut and dry as some people would like us to believe. In the end, if the fetus is a part of the womans body, it belongs to her, and any decisions she makes on the fetus are not the publics choice, it's her choice. 

piloteer

"@Applesauce ;

By the way, that's a really good song by the animals. Sky pilot is another great one by them. Sorry for getting off subject, but this issue needed to be addressed too.

John_C_87

The end result is there is a lot of argument of debate that does not address the basic principle of Pregnancy abortion. The legality is a pregnancy is an admission of guilt and they are legal.

While Sonofason a mother is not performing an amputation she is really discontinuing an abortion which is simply no longer attached to a state of pregnancy, it is now used in connection to the menstruation process as the context of the abort process can be inline to stopped, paused, restarted, and terminated all things required of an abort preceding .

It is unclear to me if a woman is really ending life as her admission of guilt to officially end the begging of living process is not in use by her. You are using the presumption that the admission is still in effect as a continuance in a process of amputation with no real idea of truth. For all we know the woman is having a female specific amputation due to a cyst, growth, or a complication deriving from birth control.  

A man will have to prove the liberties of intimacy with a woman, while a woman will lose some justification to falsie accuse a man of rape or sexual assault to offset the. It adds a level of believability as it is no longer connected to an abortion made on menstruation for some reason. By the way add lack of nourishment to that possibility as well.

Applesauce

piloteer said:

"@Applesauce ;

My apologies for such a late rebuttal to your argument, but you do make a valid point which I believe deserves a valid rebuttal. Plus, I've been "going ham" at work, so I don't have too much debate time. But, here goes.

 Leave us not paint a picture of late term abortion as an "abortion culture". 92% of abortions are done before 14 weeks. 96% are done before 20 weeks. Only 1.6 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks, and of those (53%), more than half are needed because of a legitimate risk to the mother or the baby if the pregnancy goes full term. Unfortunately, there are some women who make a decision to terminate at a really late stage in pregnancy, but if we ban late term pregnancy, we put the other half of the women at risk. One could make the argument that it should be up to a doctor to decide whether the pregnancy can or cannot be terminated so late in the pregnancy, but we'll run into two issues here. The first issue is with the doctor. If the doctor makes a wrong decision, his/her patients (mother, or child, or both)could end up dead, and beyond the emotional stress of that wrong decision, there would also be legal ramifications as well. Then, there's the issue of forcefully taking the fetus, and any decisions made on the fetus,  out of the ownership of the woman and leaving it up to somebody else. Furthermore, most of the time, the reason women need to wait so long to have a late term abortion is because in most cases, you can't find out if the mother or the baby will be at risk until 17 weeks. Then, most of them are told that they have to wait a certain number of weeks more, to even reach a healthy stage to have an abortion. Making late term or partial birth abortions illegal, put most women who have them at risk. 

The legal or moral argument against late term or partial birth abortions are not as cut and dry as some people would like us to believe. In the end, if the fetus is a part of the womans body, it belongs to her, and any decisions she makes on the fetus are not the publics choice, it's her choice. 

I'm not claiming an culture exists and I'm aware of the stats you provided.  The limitations was in response to someone asking about them.  My question did not involve a medical need to avoid potential death or harm, but rather a choice.  Your politician reply didn't really address the specifics I laid out.  The legal limits vary by state, how and why they came to be is difficult to say.

John_C_87

A state that regulates legal limits on pregnancy abortion is engaging by legislation into civil war. They are taking part in an admission of guilt to Homicide. Woman, men, or legal council is trying to use a Supreme Court ruling, Roe Vs Wade as a means to use an official loss of privacy as a justification to criminal homicide.

Every time a woman uses the term Abortion she is making the choice to tell others of her medical direction. A woman, relative, guardian, and family member can say this is not an abortion it is a Female specific Amputation. As a witness to the whole event it is unnecessary for at least this woman to admit to a felony homicide simply to receive medical care.

Everything the both of you say may, or may not be true in relationship to very limited forms of Female Specific Amputations. But! At the very least there are not 9-14 year old girls joying the ranks of accessories before and after the fact of a described homicide.

To make something perfectly clear both woman and legislators should have described in writing how abortion when used with pregnancy is not an admission of guilt. The woman and legislators should have explained how all woman ever would need to united under a state of Homicide?

piloteer

"@Applesauce ;

I beg to differ. I think my argument was a sound bit of saturation coverage that thoroughly coated your question. If the fetus is a part of the womans body, then it's her decision.

John_C_87

The argument of choice is by constitution set in a fact a woman will be asking to continue a cycle of loss of life, or prolong a death. Again the egg is alive and does die, all the time, once a month from puberty to menopause. This is hardly an excuse to ask for all woman to admit to a homicide in a United State created by law.

Female specific amputation means there is no United State of Admission used on all woman but condition of admission of guilt. Abortion, Pregnancy abortion means all woman must admit to homicide and others judge that admission made by them. Liberty must be described in some way as a woman may be judged by other woman for nothing more than not having a child as well.

The understanding piloteer is a woman is not making a choice, she is simply returning her body to its natural course by constitutional principle bound to her, by her creator. A reality is she does not get top decided she at best makes attempts at control in either side of this argument.

What should be understood clearly is a public witness does not have to stand by and acknowledge they must witness an admission of homicide to secure a false sense of authority. All woman do not guaranty woman will never have miscarriage. All woman do not judge woman as murders for allowing an egg to go unfertile in their lifetime. Autonomous control is never clearly set in precedent and control of her body is being given back to nature she never had full control of the creation of life within.

There is no reason anyone need share the burden of admission of guilt publicly. There is a Godfather argument being made here that is not seen for what it is.

beckysmith

For the longest time I didn't have an opinion on this topic. I've heard great arguments from both sides and I couldn't decide which would be the best for both sides. Until I heard someone say "We should not allow the government to take control of what we can and can't do with our bodies". That quote slapped me in the face. I know this may sound like a bit deceiving rhetoric, but it is true. I think giving the government the "control over our bodies" is crossing the line.

John_C_87

beckysmith said:

For the longest time I didn't have an opinion on this topic. I've heard great arguments from both sides and I couldn't decide which would be the best for both sides. Until I heard someone say "We should not allow the government to take control of what we can and can't do with our bodies". That quote slapped me in the face. I know this may sound like a bit deceiving rhetoric, but it is true. I think giving the government the "control over our bodies" is crossing the line.

I still do not see what a woman’s autonomy has to do with a publicly shared admission of guilt. How is say officially stopping human life not a public admission of guilt? If the constitutional argument of a woman is to keep a condition of her body that is pre-existing then the admission of the public crime should stop.

Asking for permission to take part in an admission of guilt to a homicide is still giving the government control over a woman’s body. Female Specific Amputation is not a self-incrimination that can spread in the public.

Alec

Science confirmed that a fetus is a human being.

John_C_87

Yes, science also confirmed the human female egg and the male human sperm will be human as well and nothing else. Along with they are alive, all three share the state of death equally.

Ranger1633

I say no to abortion even if mom might die. Abortion is Murder. Murder is evil. Little innocent baby that you are killing. A gift from God. Killing a baby is evil. If it is the Moms Time to die then it is her time to die. Like in the book Five People You Meat in Heaven. Every person had a time and a place for everything.

cheesycheese

Joeseph said:

I think Abortion should be legal and is so in many countries . The reasons women choose to have abortions are many and varied , women should have the right to excercise control over their own bodily autonomy .

What gives me as a male as assumed right to tell a woman in this case what she may or may not do ? 

what gives a woman the right to kill an unborn child if you dont want one ever hard of adoption

Alec

@John_C_87
The difference between a zygote and a sperm cell is the chromosome count.  A fetus has all the necessary chromosomes to be a human being whereas a sperm cell does not.

cheesycheese

"The reasons women choose to have abortions are many and varied"  They all have alternative solutions.  As an epitome/example, if a women gets raped or simply can't afford a baby, she can set the kid up for adoption.

"women should have the right to exercise control over their own bodily autonomy."  Women should not have the right to kill an unborn child.

"What gives me as a male as assumed right to tell a woman in this case what she may or may not do?"  Apart from the fact that there are many female majority pro life groups like Pro life Generation, it is because it infringes on the rights that the child should have.  While a man won't ever be pregnant, a woman won't ever become an aborted fetus.

Good luck to both of you.

John_C_87

@Alec

There are some flaws in the introduction of genetic as an alibi to the admission of guilt set by the medical use of the word abortion, meaning pregnancy abortion. First and foremost a human woman only produces eggs that become human, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. The male sperm demonstrates life by its ability to move, though it is simplistic, crude, and basic movement. While abortion itself is an admission of a guilt that describes a plan of control stating the purpose of ending life by bringing that life to an office stop. This also means the official start has been decided. This is where as men we are allowed to voice common defense to the general welfare of the public as my perjury becomes involved personally as this topic as moved into the democratic election process.

Unfortunately somewhere between Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Constitutional Rights much of the world adopted the idea that of the three Rights it is only the persons Human Right or Civil Right that matter. Totally ignoring the fact that pregnancy abortion was a self-incriminating admission of guilt to a murder. This means the idea is both a admission to plan, or a description of a past event. A very intelligent and intellectual admission of guilt is still an admission to plan or perform crime.

Make no mistake a woman has a Constitutional Right to female specific amputation as this describers a process that is not making all woman admit to a specific intention of planning as its public united state.

Alec

Can you please clarify?

John_C_87

@ Alec

1.       The Civil Right of a woman is directing a human right in a court of law with the use of new legislated law. Roe Vs. Wade des describes the public loss of privacy by united state constitution. A man is allowed to reinstate privacy when it is lost in introduction to public opinion. A man is part of the united public.

John_C_87

2. The idea of precedent is that marriage is a petition for license to reproduce human off-spring as a citizen of a nation, in this licensed union the process of a woman’s pregnancy is an intention.  The idea of the medical science field performing the function of parent role creating many a legal issue. As the law and public must now take into understanding that sperm and embryo can be donated to people of the same and mixed gender, no longer as couples who must file for license as protection to others in society. This form of public agreement to creation of a citizen is no longer between a man and a woman only.

The marriage describes the man and woman with licensed intention, the practice of science degree does not describe an intention of burden of citizenship creation alone. It is simply an issue of medical tool to assume the role of parenting without a legal recognition set by licensing with definition of law as agreement. To assure the medical professionals can be set with the burden of surrogate parenting when any combined efforts of those people who introduce human egg and human sperm together, even those who have had them donated separately donated to them. Must describe a common defense to the general welfare of all. Meaning if sperm has been use to extend a living organism by exposer, union with each other. It is those who make that introduction who become the guardians of any extension of living.

Here a term of appropriate witness description might be something intended for general gender agreements asking for public witness, Binivir and UnosMulier as it is an impartial expression to account for voluntary unions of sperm and egg made between people. Not just social agreements made between couples of the same gender within general agreement to only social living commitments.  

Alec

1) It's not about privacy, it's about saving lives.  

2) "This form of public agreement to creation of a citizen is no longer between a man and a woman only"  This isn't about homosexuality.  This is about abortion and whether or not it should be legal.

theperfectfriend

@NKJVPrewrather I don't think abortion should be legal, and for the very simple reason--situation.  Why should the government pay for your mistakes?

theperfectfriend

@Applesauce Who would you say is being dishonest? 

John_C_87

@Alec

Back up just a little. “It’s about saving life.”

The statement made that a form of public agreement to creation of citizen is no longer between a man and woman using marriage only it is not addressing homosexuality, or lesbian conduct as a target. It includes these citizens also, the point is addressing a scientific and medical science community as they are also licensed by the governing states, and are in fact practicing pregnancy abortion. This was done by scientific medical research that official started life with the planned intention of ending human life as its planned goal. This is a planned and detailed use by science for the collection of human sperm and human egg that had been donated to the respected fields for study.

The pregnancy abortion issue is all about privacy. As the scientifically medical field set a standard on only one side of the process of official starting it, and officially stopping life. The adoption of abortion into any untied state is set by the disagreement of how admission of guilt have legal ramification by law on those who make these statements.

John_C_87

@theperfectfriend

It is not about how the admission of pregnancy abortion turns out to be found. The issue is that a woman though lacking a demonstration of the ability to defend principle of united state constitution, does not limit such right cannot be held as a common defense to the general welfare of a united State. A woman has a United States Constitutional right to female specific amputation in the defense of her natural cycles of reproduction as a complete state. It is not something to be left exposed to be fractionalized by the general welfare.

The point made by a United States Constitutional right is that they’re fully transferable and can be enforced by her, her family, any legal guardian by consent, or as beneficiary to last request.

John_C_87

@John_C_87 ;

Alec;

To clarify the privacy issue. Science performs abortions with sperm and egg of humans received as donation. Science plans the extension of life knowing in advance a life is to be stopped, it is not set to follow a natural state of nature by its creator. This is with hopes of finding recovery of expense, or like suggested a hope to save life at the cost of life. This is a one to one human sacrifice, or in some cased by privacy an undisclosed number of human sacrifices for one life.

A medical Doctor is performing a female specific amputation for a woman, not pregnancy abortion as the woman is insuring her normal egg gestation process as the dominate state in her life. There is a secrecy, a privacy shared for patients who donate sperm, and egg in relations ship to the number of abortions that will take place between the couples who donate the eggs and embryos used by others. In relationship to this men, woman, or both men and woman who extend the natural life cycle of the living eggs, and living sperm are kept uniformed.

I have not even at this point of my life ever even heard one clear statement made by any geneticists,on the admission of guilt set by the wording pregnancy abortion in relationship to research. What this direction of operation and privacy states is an instruction related to licensing by states in this matter has only honored privacy for its on institution and not the general welfare of the common republic union.

piloteer

@John_C_87

Am I correct when I am assuming that what you're trying to say is women shouldn't even need to use the word abortion because the word itself obviously is stigmatized? What you're trying to say is, just the use of the word "abortion" is unjust and oppressive toward women, because it's a part of the womans body which the public at large has no say in, and frankly, it's not their business? If that's the point you're trying to make, then I guess all I can say is I fully agree with you. If not, then my apologies for misunderstanding.

John_C_87

The word is not oppressive to woman it is a self-incrimination to everyone in the general welfare, man, woman, or child. It was illegal, and often not brought to trial even though it allows a form of vote on a human execution to take place publicly with not constitutional lime by simple structuring the verbal admission. In principle a woman is not seeking a pregnancy abortion when looking for medical treatment, she seeks only to restart a period that has been officially stopped, aborted by use of some form of female specific amputation by medical professional.

An abortion only takes place during a Vitro Fertilization as the human egg and sperm are united outside of the woman's body. Artificial insemination, nor female specific amputation are not process which abort pregnancy by official stopping it. The issue is Vitro Fertilization does and is also done with human sperm and human egg by only scientific medical process, a couple is not involved in any public observable account, the use of public donations prevents public witness account of pregnancy. However for some reason it is not detailed publicly as the only described type of pregnancy abortion even though after WWII international law set limits experimentations with warning of legality. Meaning the only official stop to female pregnancy takes place by debate in the medical sciences.    

The obstacle was that Pregnancy abortion was unconstitutional due to the united state created publicly by the admission of guilt it unites all woman by. Outside of this obstacle it also is a danger to a Countries National Security as the Constitutional Right to vote by the democratic public has been subject to possible exclusion by the conviction of the admission that has been let loose by Civil Right in the public.

The confusing pivot point of admission of guilt being legal unfortunately allowed interoperation of Civil Rights that had not protection to organized crime as legal precedent was alienated by use of civil law suit. 

John_C_87

Looking at a loss of privacy as a common defense to the general welfare is a detail of the many ways limitation was lost in explaining why Roe Vs Wade could be seen as legitimate court ruling, yet still not hold any immunity to crime and litigation for all woman as a united State globally. The price or cost here is snot money it is the democratic right to vote.

John_C_87

My apologies the idea that was to be expressed was not about money. Not the point of pulling money out of orifices holes of the human body.