Is it wrong to ban or make illegal all birth control to include abortion?

I'm to reiterate the foundation I laid in another topic that was surrounding a legal issue.

So in notification to the opposing side, how I defined things there regarding the same sex issue, we starting from the same baseline.

When we talk about what is wrong, let's get a clear cut understanding of what makes something wrong for the life of any person.

What is wrong for human people ultimately is what society and government deem to be deleterious to function a society or have a functioning society.

I say deem because of politics. Government is politics. What are politics?

The constant running working processes between people in communication or media that affects one another's contact . These processes undergo regulations, instructions, rules, policies, laws, agreements/contracts.

So regulations, instructions or directions, rules, policies=/politics=/polite=/police,laws, agreements/contracts.

All this makes up a functioning society and if it's functioning, it's surviving and if it's surviving, it's thriving.

Within these running processes, there are changes, updates, rescinding, amending, altering,etc.

Why is this?

Much of society is only deeming verses actuating. But the goal is to keep a sustaining society. So the society continues to make adjustments, goes through politics, to try to hold sustenance.

First, they wanted plantation slavery to sustain society. Then they wanted to change it to no plantation slavery.

After that, they wanted segregation so called...... to sustain that way. Then, they wanted, no segregation to sustain that way and then, well allowing a "black wall street". Then that was tore down.

Then , passing some laws to do this, do that, work here, live there. That sustained until , well, redlining them.

Well so and so on and now, they killed folks on the plantation according to testimony. That was sustaining. No more of that. Now , kill them in the clinics.

It was sustaining to ban certain substances. Now , legalize to kill them slowly . An organ transplant, medical procedure will slow down the progression to make it appear we still have societal sustaining laws and making it through loopholes and justifying pharmaceuticals, drugs, toxic chemicals, additives, etc.

With all that, this is a rigamarole, although, erratic, the alibi or guise is still, what is supposed to be not wrong for the lives of people, but right.

So once again, the opposing side has the awesome burden of showing a neutral or beneficial practice concerning the topic that would be wrong to outlaw.

"So I’m going to establish the framework so this can actually be debated. If you disagree, provide clear alternatives next round."

Well it's your burden of proof as to why it's wrong to ban . That is if you don't cower out of this burden as well. I'm not affirming it's wrong, you are.

"The central issue here is personhood, and your argument currently does not engage with it."

Haven't even made an argument. I'm not the affirming side. I simply explained the context of the topic. If you didn't understand it, raise your hand and ask questions. You should know this already. You been to a school classroom, right.

"That’s why the burden is on the state to justify restriction."

Look at the opposing side trying to weasel out of the burden. I'm going to hold these folks to their burden til they concede or run.

"Early stage embryos lack a developed nervous system and therefore lack the capacity for consciousness or suffering. That creates a meaningful distinction between early abortion and harm to a person in the ordinary sense."

So being that you are concerned about a person's consciousness, you don't wish to take that away. Is that correct?

"This is why the debate turns on personhood. If the fetus is a person, then abortion presents a conflict of rights. If it is not, then the state is restricting the liberty of a recognized person without demonstrating harm to another rights-bearing individual, which is not justified under the framework being used."

Why was abortion which is killing of the unborn illegal where it was illegal?

"So your argument cannot rest on what society “deems.” You need a limiting principle and a defensible account of when personhood begins and why that threshold warrants legal enforcement."

My friend you're arguing on what society deems as a person to technically loophole killing. So don't give me this inconsistent mess.

"What is your definition of wrong that isn’t just “what society deems”?"

I'll reiterate what was said in the first round. It's either you comprehending this or not. If you don't understand, I don't know why you don't question what was said.

Here's what was said:

"When we talk about what is wrong, let's get a clear cut understanding of what makes something wrong for the life of any person."

The key terms here if they don't stick out for whatever reason: "When we talk about what is wrong" and " what makes something wrong for the life of any person"

What makes what wrong is for whatever is wrong for a person's life.

So the question is which is what the opposing side didn't ask, how do you determine what's wrong for anybody's life?

The opposing side is not questioning what I'm saying directly but just asking questions around the issue where if you just question what was exactly said and asking the person to unpack exactly what was said, the answers are right there in what was said already.

So how do we know?

Well let's look at more at what I said. The answer is right there.

"What is wrong for human people ultimately is what society and government deem to be deleterious to function a society or have a functioning society."

Key terms again : "What is wrong for human people" and "deleterious to function a society or have a functioning society"

So what would be deleterious to function a society, you would not have .......a functioning......... society.... would you not ?

What makes up a society? People. What would it ultimately mean for people to stop functioning which is in essence......what? What is the function of a person?

Didn't I say "life of any person"?

This is what makes that which is wrong for the "life of any person".

See this is unpacking. This is how you unpack what is being said instead of going roundabout. The opposing side demonstrates no circumventing at all.

The opposing side has the opposing side's own cookie cutter standardized uniform questions instead of grasping what is being exactly said, not implied but EXACTLY SAID to get the answers to what is apparently being sought for.

I'm picking apart my exact words, not adding, making ad hoc details of anything. That's because each word I used was purposely meant to be used and they all have definitions.

"All this makes up a functioning society and if it's functioning, it's surviving and if it's surviving, it's thriving."

So we got that functioning is surviving=thriving, which is being alive.

Which is in context with what I said next:

"But the goal is to keep a sustaining society"

You can't keep a sustaining society if it's not functional, if there's anything deleterious to its function, IT BE DEAD!

"What is your limiting principle on government power?"

I can't say I have any. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean in that question.

"When does personhood begin, and what property grounds it?"

It begins whenever according to who you are talking to .

I particularly don't separate personhood from the *** life*** of human existence. As far as I'm concerned, personhood has existed since humans existed so that have to be the first one or person that has ever existed on the planet .

"Why should that threshold justify state enforcement across cases?"

What threshold? In regards to the last question I take it. It's consistent across all cases of the board.

"Until those are addressed, your position asserts a legal conclusion without defining the legal system, asserts wrongdoing without defining wrong, and assumes rights without establishing a rights holder."

My position is debunking your attempt at demonstrating what you're affirming which it is wrong to ban birth control which abortion is one of .

Let's see if you meet your burden or run from it .

Here's the thing. Think outside yourself, and about how you feel. Readers can learn from what you have to say particularly if you're able to produce irrefutable points. Otherwise only thing they learn is your cowardice to argue and me standing my ground.

I rest my case.

I rest My case.

Case closed on the cowardice poor excuse debater.