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! Do people have the right to peacefully oppose abortion?in Politics

YeshuaRedeemed

Yes. It is a freedom of speech issue. I have the right to say whatever I want. Abortion is messed up./ If you don't want a baby, use birth control, or don't have sex. 

Joeseph

Yes , the key being peacefully   anything other than that turns you into a tyrant who wishes to force their views on another uninvited 

Ampersand

Yes, but that doesn't mean they have a right to oppose it in any time, place and situation.

Mr_Bombastic

@YeshuaBought
It's in the Constitution. 

Mr_Bombastic

@Ampersand
Looks like you're one of those idiots who want free speech zones. There Are no restrictions on free speech, as far as location or time of day. 

whiteflame

Individuals have every right to peacefully oppose any policy they wish. Organizations can do the same. How they choose to do so can be illegal, particularly if laws outside of free speech (like those involving consumer fraud) are violated.

MayCaesar

Yes, they do. The Constitution, specifically its First Amendment, guarantees the right for the individual to peacefully and publicly support any possible policy. You can support abortion, you can oppose abortion, you can be indifferent towards abortion, you can believe that the matter of abortion is a First World problem - and you can publicly voice all these opinions.

Having the right to support a certain policy, however, does not mean that that policy, in term, does not contradict the law. For example, you may advocate for demolition of the Republican form of governmental organization and installing, say, a Communist form in its place - but regardless of all that support, that form cannot be installed legally, because it would contradict the Constitution. So you can support an illegal law, but the law will remain illegal regardless of any support.

There is a case to be made that the right of abortion is just as absolute as the right of free speech (see Roe v. Wade). In that case, even if 100% people oppose abortion, abortion will always remain legal.

It is an interesting paradox. Constitution is shaped by the people - but Constitution is also defended from being shaped by the people. Can the Constitution be changed in order to make a publicly supported law legal, or must the Constitution dictate what laws can be legal? In the US, it is both, in a way, and it strongly depends on the law. With regards to abortions, I suppose there could be a debate on that, although practically we are too far away from an authoritarian governship for such things as bodily autonomy to be restricted on the federal level. The states can have their own interpretation of the law, and even can have their own laws, however.

YeshuaRedeemed

@MayCaesar Agreed. I think peaceful protest of anything is a right to free speech issue.

YeshuaRedeemed

@whiteflame Free speech is a right when murder is going on.

YeshuaRedeemed

@Ampersand Free speech is a right everywhere.

with_all_humility

I agree to be opposed to something is protected under the first amendment.   What I find ironic is the Left want to label any speech that is in opposition to their agenda as "Hate Speech" and then they want to band "Hate Speech" and call it unprotected under the first amendment.  

So, there are people who believe that their point of view is the only view...and you have no right to oppose that view.  It is sad what is being taught and endorsed in the educations system in our country.  

whiteflame

YeshuaBought said:

@whiteflame Free speech is a right when murder is going on.

Free speech is a right regardless of what its being used to address. Where we've disagreed in the past is with regards to the usage of speech as part of an organization that receives public funds to deceive consumers. I assume you still believe they should be allowed to lie to patients?

YeshuaRedeemed

@whiteflame I agree. Sorry.

MayCaesar

with_all_humility said:

So, there are people who believe that their point of view is the only view...and you have no right to oppose that view.  It is sad what is being taught and endorsed in the educations system in our country.  

I am not sure where this notion comes from. Second Amendment is one of the first few principles taught at classes on politics/history in the US. I think you are making a popular mistake where you believe that your beliefs should be free of criticism. You say something, someone says something back - and you think that this saying something back infringes on your rights. In other words...


The reality is, freedom of speech goes both ways. When you say something and someone else says that your statement is wrong - both you and them exercise your freedom of speech. And someone criticizing you does not mean that they believe you have no right to say what you do. You do have that right; but you do not have the right to be liked by people for doing so.

Mr_Bombastic

@MayCaesar
The Constitution grants everyone the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A fetus,  by every medical definition available, is alive.  Therefore,  abortion is unconstitutional. 

Mr_Bombastic

@MayCaesar there can be no freedom of speech without the freedom to offend. This is a truism that everyone must keep in mind when debating politics. 

WordsMatter

@Mr_Bombastic I can't be forced to give my bodily resources to another living person to keep them alive. If I consent to do that and I get halfway into the procedure and decide to revoke my consent I am free to do so with no legal repercussions and the person who needed me will die. If the fetus is a living person then the mother can revoke her consent to provide that person with blood and all important bodily nutrients, if it dies without them it's not illegal because you can't force someone to use their bodily resources to keep them alive.

MayCaesar

@Mr_Bombastic

A tree is also alive, yet does not have these rights. By "everyone" the Constitution defines either "people", "citizens" or "persons" (depending on the part), and the fetus is neither of these.

For all legal purposes, a fetus is a parasite in a woman's body, and just like any other parasite, can be destroyed by the host's decision. It is unconstitutional to prohibit its removal on a federal level, as Roe v. Wade concluded. 

Ampersand

YeshuaBought said:

@Ampersand Free speech is a right everywhere.

People can have their rights restricted when it comes into conflict with other people's rights. That's ordinary and the entire nature of how laws work - people are imprisoned and have their rights restricted due to infringing on the rights of others.

For instance in the Uk which doesn't usually have the same level of anti-abortion fervour that the US does, we've just had our first buffer zone put around an abortion clinic restricting protesters rights to free speech there. This was because the protesters right to free speech was conflicting with the right to privacy of people using the abortion clinic so a decision had to be made about how to adjudicate this conflict between two separate rights.

Free Speech doesn't automatically override all other rights, hence my previous comment about how "that doesn't mean they have a right to oppose it in any time, place and situation."

John_C_87

Mr_Bombastic said:

@MayCaesar
The Constitution grants everyone the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A fetus,  by every medical definition available, is alive.  Therefore,  abortion is unconstitutional. 

This might be what you are trying to explain.

It is the Declaration of Independence which grants the United state right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the United States Constitution which forms the structure of constitutional judicial separation to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide of the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The blessing comes from the Independence set before United State of Constitution. That which forms the more perfect union of basic principle and legal precedent.

Reasons why Pregnancy abortion against the United States Constitution.

1.       It is a transferable self-incrimination.

2.       It is an admission of guilt to a felony crime.

3.       Its united state that is shared with the public is an admission of guilt that seeks participation in the crime by the public.

4.       Pregnancy abortion is a lie. A woman cannot by proper use of the word abort use it to address the issues of her pregnancy.

a.       For the word abort to be useable an object must be officially recognized to have started.

b.      The object must be stopped/paused until evaluation of possible malfunctions can be addressed and corrected. At which time it then can be restarted or terminated.

5.       Pregnancy abortion violates the Medical Hippocratic Oath.

Where a person can question the right of abortion a woman can be placed in a united state of female specific amputation to insure a civil liberty under constitutional judicial separation. A liberty that cannot be granted with the use of an public admission of guilt to felony crime.

John_C_87

Mr_Bombastic said:

@MayCaesar there can be no freedom of speech without the freedom to offend. This is a truism that everyone must keep in mind when debating politics. 

Free speech is attached by first Amendment to constitutional principles among these also is a right to file grievance. Free speech is a qualification by verbal test that can be self-applied. Is the word created free of self-value? Is the word also created free of assigned cost? If the answer to both of these questions is yes it is free, meaning it has been successfully explained as free speech, otherwise the speech is a filed grievance. In either case a person has a right to request a common defense on grievance to also insure their independence.

Which is the key to public permission to be assumed by the powers of a state of the union made by United States Constitutional Judicial separation, and the united state of public Independence.

John_C_87

The whole issue of the United States of Americas, and American independence was built on the fact yes we the people can be forced to give ourselves and property so others may live.

Do woman understand how they can be seen, or proven as accessory to over 1,500 counts of murder every time she was to have intercourse with one man? The good news is if she changes teams and has relationships with only one woman she simple faces one accessory charge every 28 days. The odds of conviction may be low but the case can be still be made. On the other side of the united state created by nature a man can be charged with accessory once every 28 days, or 1,500 counts of murder every time he where to have intercourse with a woman. Yeah! Double standard!

This is only one reason behind a double standard of life in relationship to reproduction, Human Egg, Human sperm are both alive. Unfortunately there are precedent that have been set so that it is not unconstitutional by united state to stop removal of fetus. Something that may come as a surprise to many woman by United States Constitutional right. To be honestly woman have not set a great deal of effort into upholding United States Constitutional right and it has come at a great price to woman, as the woman’s lib set the focus of blame for the legal obstacle of a woman President. A.K.A by United State of Constitution as Prasedera, or Madam Prasedera the United States Consotution.