Men Should Have No Say Womens' Abortion Decision

Because my opponent has the burden of proof, I only need to rebut his arguments. I don’t need to present any arguments of my own. However, I would like to make a few general comments before I discuss his argument specifically. Abortion is not some glorious freedom for women or even for feminists. Abortion is awful, invasive and sometimes traumatic. Women who do not want to get pregnant should not be getting pregnant. The fact that they are, in such large numbers, is a sad indication of the power balance in sexual relationships. Germaine Greer says it best: “If we accept every abortion as the outcome of unwanted and easily avoided pregnancy, we have to ask ourselves how it is that women are still exposing themselves to this risk. A woman who is unable to protect her cervix from exposure to male hyperfertility, who cannot suggest another way of making love or ask for a condom to be used, is certainly not calling the shots… Because he ejaculates when and where he ejaculates, she conceives against her will…The crowning insult is that this ordeal [abortion] is represented to her as some kind of privilege. Her sad and onerous duty is garbed in the rhetoric of a civil right. ” [1] There is nothing desirable about abortion. However, what my opponent suggests – that women should be prevented from having abortions – is even more horrible. It’s allowing women no more power over their bodies than domestic animals have. The resolution is that men should have no say in women’s abortion decisions. Absolutely correct. It can be extended, though, that women shouldn’t have a say in any abortion decision other than their own. Each woman should have the sole power to make decisions about her own body. And now to my opponent’s argument, which he presented in four parts. P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. Yes. This seems reasonable. I’ve never had much liking for the “just a mass of cells” argument. However, until about 6 months’ gestation, these “humans” are unable to live independently. They are parasites on the host mother. Also, for pragmatic reasons, they are not defined as human beings in a legal sense. It’s using emotive language to say that an abortion is murder of the unborn. Another way to see it is as separating the foetus from the mother. She is denying it access to her body. Of course, the result is that it dies. But the difference is important. Women should have sovereignty over their own bodies. They shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice themselves physically to support other people. P2) Killing human beings is immoral. Yes, usually. But we allow exceptions to the rule in our society. For example, killing in self-defense. Also, failure to intervene (in the absence of duty of care) to save lives is never punished. Even when the intervention required is negligible, say, just calling 9-1-1 or fetching someone’s medicine from their handbag, there is no law requiring people to do it (except in Vermont and Minnesota where there may be a small fine). [2] Of course, this doesn’t mean that failure to intervene isn’t immoral. Indeed, how could you ever think well of someone who stood with their mobile in their hand and watched someone die when they could have made the call to save them? But we recognize that much of morality is private. That people make moral and immoral decisions and that they cannot all be (and should not all be) subject to external control. Abortion, obviously, is one of these private decisions. P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). This is such an ambiguous statement, because immorality is subjective and “stand against” could mean anything at all. For example, in Bangladesh, it’s considered immoral for a woman to travel alone, to shake hands with strange men and to walk about in public with bare shoulders. Of course, there will be some among the 150 million Bangladeshis who don’t think this way. However, there will also be several million Bangladeshi men who feel very strongly about these things and who feel moved to “stand against” any immorality they come across. Can they? Should they? And to what extent? Would it be OK for them to take a stick and whack any offending woman? How about imposing a law to forbid women from leaving the house without a male relative? How about some kind of ritual humiliation for offending women so that everyone can watch and learn? No, no, and no. So, on the whole, I disagree with my opponent’s statement. He’ll need to be more specific. C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). Con said: “If men have no say in the issue, then…[w]e would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men. ” I think my opponent is making a little joke here. Until relatively recently, all legislation was written by men and all court decisions were made by men. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that I support overturning all these decisions. However, if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Christianity, which has been very male dominated. And we would end up where we started, which is with nothing to prevent women from making decisions to abort or not to abort for themselves. It really is a woman’s own decision, and I’m glad my opponent has failed to prove otherwise. [1] Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Transworld Publishers Ltd, 1999. p. 89. [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...