args

Should abortion be illegal

Thanks to Con for this interesting topic and contentious issue. Because it is such a controversial issue, I'm going to try my best not to offend anyone. To start off, I believe that Con mischaracterizes what pro-choice people generally are. What they tell you is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion, But rather pro-privacy, Which means that the decision to abort should not be part of the government's affairs. First of all, If we make abortion illegal, This would not be a problem at all because the illegality itself would be a powerful enough deterrent to stop most women from getting abortions. Second, Pro would like to contend that pro-choice people ARE indeed pro-abortion. Many of the social movements we have in the status quo promote empowering women, Giving them the right to choose, Etc. These pro-choice advocates are arguing that it is purely the woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Therefore, Since these advocates represent the majority of America's pro-choice constituency, Then it is only logical to assume pro-choice equals pro-abortion, And my argumentation will be based on that fact. Now onto some refutation: 1a. Con tells you how a woman's unwanted child is 'her property until it is out of her'. Pro will concede that this child is the woman's property as it is in her body. However, This does not justify why the woman should be able to kill her child when doing so would violate that child's fundamental right to life. Just because the unborn child is inside of its mother's body doesn't diminish its universal right to life that we uphold in society. We'll deal with this later on in my constructive arguments. 1b. Con also says that 'forcing a woman to give a painful birth that could negatively affect her and her partner is even worse than killing an unborn child in my opinion'. They also give an example of a 15-year-old girl being raped and forced to go through with her pregnancy. Three lines of refutation to this: Con makes the comparative that forcing a woman to give a painful and detrimental birth is worse than killing an unborn child. This claim is completely unproven and subjective. What Pro believes is that all human beings, Regardless of circumstance, Should all have the universal right to life. The woman may have to undergo pain and take care of the child, But at least we would not be violating this child's right to life. Con also argues how women are often put into these situations and how it's unethical to force them to continue (e. G their example of rape). However, This is not a problem with abortion itself, But rather the issues that lead to women seeking an abortion. Unwanted pregnancies and rape cases could be prevented by other measures, But Con's argument does not prove the necessity of having abortion legalized. On that note, By banning abortions we would be shining more light on the issues on the issues of rape, Unintended pregnancies, Etc. , Thereby empowering women rather than putting a temporary stop-gap to their problems. On Pro's side, Society stands to benefit just as much if not more. 2. Con states how 'Everyone should agree that the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. ' They then state that because of that, No one should prevent people from having access to birth control. Obviously, This is a goal that Pro also supports. We also recognize that yes, Young adults certainly are the most vulnerable group in the debate. However, Understand that making abortion illegal would already be a strong enough deterrent for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Having abortion legal would hold these young couples less accountable for their unintended pregnancies because they know that they'd always have a way to undo that. Furthermore, Simply giving these women abortions will not free them from the constraints of their societal situations. If Con does argue that preventing abortions would strain these women financially, How exactly would abortions solve these (often) single mother's situations? The only way government could truly help these women get a better life is by providing them with the tools to liberate them financially. Constructive arguments: 1. Abortion is violating the baby's fundamental right to human life. As Wikipedia states: "The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, In particular, Should not be killed by another human being. " (1) There has been scientific debate over what point a fetus can be considered a life. However, If we ignore these stipulations altogether and consider the humanity of a fetus, It is undeniable that that fetus will become a human in the future. They may not be sentient or experience anything at a certain point, But that should not detract from them their universal right to be alive that we value in society today. The extent in which we punish violators of this principle, At the extreme, Is demonstrated, For example, By the application of capital punishment in many nations around the world today. It is important to uphold this value in society, Even if it may not be applicable practically. 2. There are many complications with having abortions that cause practical harms, Both physical and mental, To the woman. Some physical complications involved include abdominal pain and cramping, Nausea, Vomiting, Diarrhea, Etc. (2) There can also be much more severe side effects in certain cases. Mental complications include feelings of regret, Anger, Guilt, Shame, Insomnia, Etc. (3) Ultimately these feelings could culminate in depression and anxiety for these women, Putting their lives at stake. Pro does not believe that placing these undue burdens on women is moral or practical in any case, Even if Con contends our first point. Although abortion may seem appealing or necessary to some at first, The fact is that these spur-of-the-moment decisions may not reflect what they actually want. When you look at the burden that these women have to deal with following an abortion, It is clear that abortion can't simply be justified just because Con thinks it will help all women in society. 3. Abortion empowers women to pursue social justice for their gender. In my refutation, I've already touched on this idea, But I'll expand on the impacts for these women, And society in general. The problem with abortion is that while many argue it's protecting women's rights, It is in fact just putting a wool blanket over the real issues in American society today. On the other hand, By making abortion illegal, We would be shining a light on many issues surrounding women, Such as rape, Unwanted pregnancies, Abusive relationships, Financial difficulties (as I've stated earlier). To extend, By having an abortion as an option, We are vindicating many men from their irresponsible sexual activity and allowing them to continue exploiting women in many cases. They think that they are able to get away with their actions because they can avoid accountability often just by using that abortion option. This is counterintuitive to the feminist principle that I think Con is trying to uphold here. The impact resulting from these two premises is we overall get a more socially just society that promotes feminism on a broader scale than the status quo, As we are able to raise more awareness about issues that actually matter. Thus far in the debate, Pro is the only one that provides detailed analysis to how abortion is principally unjust in violating the right to life, And how it will harm women and society, Impeding the feminist movement. I look forward to Con's response. (1) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Right_to_life (2) https://americanpregnancy. Org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/ (3) https://americanpregnancy. Org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-emotional-effects/