Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Abortion

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 17:56, 29 October 2007; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should abortion be permitted?

This article is based off of a Debatabase article written by Joe Devanny on September 29, 2000 (last modified: Monday, June 06, 2005).

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the mother’s right to choose as the primary concern. Whilst abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups.

Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a foetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed. Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children (see point 3).


No

Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child’s right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman’s right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their foetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women travelled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. In addition, the demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.


No

Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; theirs are vulnerable lives and as such must be protected. Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn’t legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs’ laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalisation here. Whether we should actively restrain would-be ‘abortion tourists’ from travelling is a separate question, but one which can be answered in the affirmative given what is at stake. In ordinary circumstances such a move would indeed be draconian, but where a restriction in someone’s freedom is the price to pay for protecting an innocent life, then so be it.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Are we really talking about a ‘life?’ At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own ‘existence,’ really commensurable with the killing of a ‘person?’ There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly ‘human’ life is.


No

The question of what life is can certainly be answered: it is sacred, inviolable and absolute. It is unquestionable that the foetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits to which you refer. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the foetus.


No

Whilst these are different circumstances, and such medical emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the abortion is to be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’ dilemma is one which defies solution, and aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill a person in order to save another. This is a clear, and unpalatable, case of treating a human-being as a means to an end.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

It is not just medical emergency that presents compelling grounds for termination. Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.


No

Whilst an appalling crime has been committed, is it the fault of the unborn child? The answer is, of course, no. Denying someone life, because of the circumstances of their conception is as unfair as anything else imaginable.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.


No

What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the water-shed between life and termination? The practise of eugenics is roundly condemned by all civilised countries.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

No

Pro/con activists organizations in the United States

Yes


No

  • American Life League
  • Catholics United for Life
  • Democrats for Life
  • Feminists for Life
  • Jews for Life
  • Libertarians for Life
  • LifeLinks
  • National Coalition for Life and Peace
  • National Right to Life
  • Operation Save America
  • Priests for Life
  • Pro-Life Alliance of Gays & Lesbians
  • Pro-Life America
  • Republican National Coalition for Life
  • Reformers for Life Assembly
  • Roe v Wade.org
  • Susan B. Anthony List
  • Ultimate Pro-Life Resource Page
  • Women and Children First


References:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.