Abortion should be banned in the United States (my first topic).

[Iteration]

@Dougie93

Okay, let's see if we can repeat the question here, and maybe this time you will answer it. Maybe you don't understand the question on the table. 

To be clear, the question is: 
Yes or no, do you believe that what is currently legal determines what ought to be legal? There are two possible answers to this, yes or no. I am not going to accept a continual dodge of the question, I want the answer. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Iteration

[Dougie93]

Just now, Iteration said:

@Dougie93

 There are two possible answers to this, yes or no. 

that is not the case in America

American law is divided into two distinct jurisdictions, state & federal

so there are fifty separate answers to your question in America, on a state by state basis

[Iteration]

@Dougie93

Answer the question. 

Yes or no, do you believe that what is currently legal determines what ought to be legal? 
Stop, dodging the question just because you are in a corner. Answer the question. 
Yes or no? 

 

[Iteration]

I am tired of this dishonesty. Stop being evasive and answer the question, or concede your argument. 

[Dougie93]

the abortion laws or rather lack thereof are almost perfectly now aligned in America & Canada

there is no constitutional right to an abortion in America

there is no constitutional right to an abortion in Canada

the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that there is no federal abortion law in America

the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there is no federal abortion law in Canada

in America it then falls to the states to decide

in Canada it falls to the provinces to decide

Edited October 9, 2022 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Iteration said:

@Dougie93

Answer the question. 

Yes or no, do you believe that what is currently legal determines what ought to be legal? 
Stop, dodging the question just because you are in a corner. Answer the question. 
Yes or no? 

 

since there a two separate jurisdictions in America, there is no single answer

you are invoking the law, so you are bound to that construct therein

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Iteration said:

I am tired of this dishonesty. Stop being evasive and answer the question, or concede your argument. 

you are the dishonest one, insisting that there is a single unitary law in America, when the opposite is actually the case

there are in fact 52 separate legal jurisdictions in America, including the District of Columbia

Edited October 9, 2022 by Dougie93

[Aristides]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

a Canadian province could write a law regarding abortion as well, there is nothing precluding that in Canada

Probably not. The Supremes said the existing law was a Charter violation, there is no reason they wouldn’t rule the same for any other law that restricted a woman’s right. What provinces could do is restrict access through the provincial health care system which some already do.

[Iteration]

@Dougie93

Yes or no, do you believe that what is currently legal determines what ought to be legal? I will not allow you to continue to dodge the question. I want an answer, yes or no. Nothing you are saying is relevant to the question I am asking you. Answer the question. 

[Iteration]

@Aristides

Now that you are back, please answer the question that you avoided previously. 

Quote

You stated that personhood determines whether or not someone has rights. My question is, what determines whether or not someone is a person? 

 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Iteration said:

@Dougie93

Yes or no, do you believe that what is currently legal determines what ought to be legal?

depends on the jurisdiction and details of the law

 

[Iteration]

@Dougie93

I am not asking you about jurisdictions or details. I am asking you, as a general rule, is what is currently legal, what ought to be legal. Your response suggests that your answer is no. Is this correct? 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Iteration said:

@Dougie93

I am not asking you about jurisdictions or details. I am asking you, as a general rule, is what is currently legal, what ought to be legal. Your response suggests that your answer is no. Is this correct? 

there is no general rule regarding the law, the law must be judged on a case by case basis

 

 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Probably not. The Supremes said the existing law was a Charter violation, there is no reason they wouldn’t rule the same for any other law that restricted a woman’s right. What provinces could do is restrict access through the provincial health care system which some already do.

the SCOCAN only ruled that law prohibiting of Henry Morgantaler from providing abortions was unconstitutional,

they did not rule that no law could be passed regarding abortion

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the SCOCAN only ruled that law prohibiting of Henry Morgantaler from providing abortions was unconstitutional,

they did not rule that no law could be passed regarding abortion

They ruled it “violated a woman’s right to life liberty and security of the person” How would any other law making it illegal not meet the same fate?

Edited October 9, 2022 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

They ruled it “violated a woman’s right to life” liberty and security of the person” How would any other law restricting access not meet the same fate?

well, first of all, Section 33 The Notwithstanding Clause;  empowers provinces to overrule Section 7

[Iteration]

@Dougie93

I am tried of you trying to dodge this question because you know you are in a corner. Is what is currently legal at a given time always what ought to be legal at a given time, YES OR NO? 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Iteration said:

@Dougie93

I am tried of you trying to dodge this question because you know you are in a corner. Is what is currently legal at a given time always what ought to be legal at a given time, YES OR NO? 

depends on the law

there are currently 53 Titles under the United States Code

each should be judged on its merits or lack thereof

 

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

well, first of all, Section 33 The Notwithstanding Clause;  empowers provinces to overrule Section 7

And yet 34 years later, no province has dared.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Aristides said:

And yet 34 years later, no province has dared.

 

none the less, the mechanism to prohibit abortions is constitutional in Canada, so long as it is invoked by a province

America has the same law now, no federal law, the states will decide

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

none the less, the mechanism to prohibit abortions is constitutional in Canada, so long as it is invoked by a province

America has the same law now, no federal law, the states will decide

The Supremes overturned a Quebec high court decision. Quebec never signed the Constitution. It ain’t going to happen.

[Iteration]

Quote

depends on the law
there are currently 53 Titles under the United States Code
each should be judged on its merits or lack thereof

Okay, so your answer is no, what is legal currently is NOT always what should be legal. So just like you, I don't care about the current law. I don't care if slavery or marital rape are currently legal because I am only concerned with what should be legal. Do you have an argument that abortion should be legal? 

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You have to dehumanize it in order to kill it and still sleep at night.  This is what the Nazis did, and slave owners.

You can call it whatever you want, it's a human life.  When does a fetus become a human being?

When and IF it is born, of course.

I am NOT killing anything. I ADVOCATE for giving the woman the CHOICE, since it is ONLY A MATTER OF OPINION whether a fetus deserves human rights.

The FACT is, it takes a LOT MORE than DNA to make it human. Ever heard of what happens when a new born is not given love and attention? Usually the making of a monster.

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is exactly what slave owners said.

There was NO CONFLICT of human RIGHTS for slave owners to own slaves.

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Is it alive and human or not?  If you can kill it and end its life, that means it's alive, and should have a right to life.

^Your OPINION, nothing more.

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why is a pregnant woman and her doctor the only citizens who are allowed to commit violent assault on another innocent human without their consent and with intent to kill?

Because until it is BORN, it is DEPENDENT on the sacrifices of the woman.

Being male, you have NO STANDING to advocate the sacrifice of rights for a female cause you have NO SKIN in that game.

Edited October 9, 2022 by robosmith

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Iteration said:

Okay, so you believe we should be able to stab illegal immigrants to death? Yes or no? 

 

No, I said DIFFERENT RIGHTS. Fetus have different rights than born humans. Duh.