Abortion

Pro major opening arguments, reasons, and evidence for taking an affirmative position on abortion. A woman has a legal right [in every state] to an abortion [see below].[1] So this is a map that indicates abortion policies around the world. As you see, the United State (including every single state in the Union) has under law legal abortion. This is from an official UN report. [Pro question] “What evidence does Con have for claiming 31 states have banned abortion?” What states have a categorically ban on abortion? Where can I find documentation of laws on the book in these states will prove they have categorical bans on abortion? Because please provide the documentation with an accurate citation to that material. Given that it is public record, I should be able to retrieve the laws online and should be able to retrieve news articles from reputable sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. So, please provide that information. The philosophical argument as well as logical arguments of the issue rest primarily on the notion of bodily integrity, including reproductive rights, and a right to terminate a pregnancy. So what do I mean by this. In Mandatory Motherhood, biologist Garrett Hardin wrote that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the choice dichotomy that says the choice for a woman is either abortion or no abortion fails to account for the reality of the situation. In reality, the women with unwanted pregnancies face a much more stark decision, either abortion or compulsory childbearing.[2] While abortion is never a desirable outcome, something treated lightly, if a woman decides to make a decision, a choice over her body, she determines is the best course then we need to ask ourselves whether an autonomous free agent have claim of her body or does the fetus claiming the body of the woman? Pro takes the side of women and the fundamental right to have control and choice over your body. One of the most overused but still valid argument by analogy should lead voters to see the logic in supporting the abortion rights of women. This is referred to as the Violinist argument. It was developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion. Here is the basic situation: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."[3] A person is not obligated to provide or share organs to maintain the viable of sick people, even if it would save their lives. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will.[4] Con’s mistakes in interpretation of Pro’s initial comments (they were a hypothetical demonstration of bad arguments that derive from conjecture) not a comment on whether humans and ants have the same value. I used a ridiculous argument to demonstrate the ridiculousness that result from a particular variety of debate. To be clear: the ant case was to demonstrate an invalid form of argument based on Con’s opening Round Statement. That is why explains why I underlined why a hypothetical personal claim is not a valid form of argument. Let me brief demonstrate again using a different example—and to be clear this is a demonstration of how valid arguments work, not statement and not arguments related to abortion: I believe that Con does not have a right to any belief [a hypothetical claim based on personal conviction] Because I believe that all systems of belief that do not conform to my own are immoral and illegitimate [reason for claim] God beamed a text message into my brain and told that this views were correct [evidence] This illustrate how arguments of personal conviction or personal beliefs are just that and must include logic, evidence, or even rhetorical support. [1] "World Abortion Policies 2013". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved 22 August 2014. [2] Garrett James Hardin, Mandatory Motherhood: the true meaning of “right to life.” (Los Angles: The University of California Press, 1974). [3] A Defense of Abortion [4] McDonagh, Eileen L. 1996. Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent. Oxford University Press, New York, NY; and Jarvis Thomson, Judith. 1986. In Defense of Abortion. Reprinted in Rights, Restitution, and Risk. Ed. W. Pavent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Massachusetts.