Abortion

Well, that wasn"t the angle from which I agreed to debate, but I"ll argue the case nevertheless. My first argument will, in line with the rules my opponent has set, only address my core arguments"though, inevitably, there will be overlap, but I will not mention his data directly. Let me begin by saying that I do not personally condone abortion, and one need not do so in order to believe that abortion is a viable choice"even if we are to accept that a zygote or a fetus are persons, which is, by and large, a theological view. My personal opinion"informed by my Catholic faith--is irrelevant ("separation of church and state," which the Supreme Court has long upheld, is a core tenet of the Constitution and of the founding of the U.S.). Not only am I a man, who can never become pregnant, but I have never been intimately involved in a dilemma that would lead one to have an abortion, so I can"t surmise what they must have been feeling. This is not a fun thing for women to choose, but it is false to say that they eventually will regret their decision; indeed, many do, but many also report feeling relieved in having made the right decision at the time. Studies have reported, for instance, that 87% of women are "highly confident" about their choice. 90% said that their primary reaction was "relief." In fact, evidence shows that procedures aimed at discouraging women from having abortions--e.g., mandatory ultrasounds--actually do not, by and large, deter women from making this decision. Ultimately, the attempt to demonize these women as monsters for making a choice about their own bodies"a right that the Supreme Court has protected for 40 years as a Constitutional right to privacy"is largely disingenuous, and rooted in fallacy. First, abortion is a viable option in the case of rape. A 2004 survey placed the number (the percentage of abortions that follow rape) at 1%. But we need to take that number in context: that"s 1% of 1.3 million women, or 13,000 abortions after rape, with the survey indicating the average figure is around 19,500 per year. Let"s put aside the figures for a second, though, and consider this in context. Is the counterargument truly that, because the number is small relative to the total number of women who have abortions, that it is negligible and we should forget about it? Should we accept Rep. Trent Frank"s view that "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy [is] very low?" Not only is that highly offensive, but it"s simply not true. A 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina determined that 5 percent of rape victims aged 12 to 45 became pregnant as a result"32,000 pregnancies per year. They wrote "[r]ape-releated pregnancy occurs with significant frequency [and] it is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence." A study in 2000 by the University of California, San Francisco placed the number at 25,000 per year. But let"s look at the broader picture. Are you truly willing to force a women who has been raped"who has been traumatized"to carry to term, against her will, her rapist"s child? Are you going to force her to report the crime, and subject her to the torment that will inevitably come (in fact, there"s a thread on DDO where people are questioning whether the victim"s testimony is valid evidence in court"in essence questioning whether she is lying about it or whether she "enjoyed it")? Are you going to force her to undergo a mandatory, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound, as they must do in Virginia? Even under a proposal, such as one that Governor Romney presented in 2012"where abortion would be legal in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (and, by the way, he wanted the states to decide, so a state could still prohibit it in those circumstances"there is still a key problem: how will women "prove" that they have been raped? Romney commented that he would probably want to "just trust them," but a recent Republican proposal"yes, created by the House Judiciary Committee"s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice all-male panel, headed by Trent Franks"would allow the I.R.S. to determine what constitutes rape or incest? Why is it that Republicans only support government intervention when it comes to abortion? Let us also not forget about this important question: How about the "rights of the rapist?" Will he have any custody over the child? In 31 states, he does in fact have those legal rights, which I think is a travesty. There are several important takeaways from this 2004 study, though. One is that, as the abstract says, "[t]he decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons." Of the 1,209 patients who were interviewed, 74% claimed that it would interfere with their education, work, or ability to care for people who financially depend on them; 73% cited financial constraints; 48% cited relationship problems, or had no assistance with raising the child, and would need to be a single mother. Common themes were limited resources, money, and lack of support. The ability for a women to control whether or not she has a child determines whether she will be able to be active in the world and to contribute to society. It is, of course, unavoidable that she--and only she--must carry the child for nine months, while her partner can, and in many cases does, simply back out. Why should she alone be held responsible? Next, let's discuss further the notion of women being unable to afford a child, as that has been demonstrated as a primary concern among women seeking abortions. Women with incomes below the federal poverty line account for over 40% of all abortions. About 60% of women who have abortions already have a child, and 30% have two or more children. How is it possible to brand these women as irresponsible, when the data is quite clear that they, simply put, cannot afford to have another child? Would it not be more irresponsible for a women to bring another child into the world, whom she knows she cannot probably pay to support? Not only would she threaten herself, her family, and the children she already has, but she would threaten the life of this child. It's certainly not ideal no matter how you frame it, but that's why this issue should be left to the discretion of the mother. Circumstances differ depending on the respective families, and my opponent's view--that abortion should not be a viable choice, and as he noted in his first post, that it should be illegal--removes these decision from women, and imposes a "one-size-fits-all" plan devised by government bureaucrats. Is this truly a plausible path? Can the government truly intervene and tell women that they ought not have sexual intercourse if they cannot support a child (even if they are using birth control)--and, if they do, and get an abortion (because there is also data indicating, even prior to Roe v. Wade, that banning abortion does not eliminate it, but simply makes it more dangerous, but that's not what our debate is on), that they should be prosecuted? Forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy is effectively forced birth, and that represents an authoritarian position that I cannot endorse. Likely the most cited reason as to why abortion is a viable choice is to protect the health and life of the mother--including cases where the fetus, also, would not survive. Former U.S. representative Joe Walsh once inaccurately asserted that "there is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology." A valid counterexample, for instance, is ectopic pregnancies, where the child is born outside of the uterus. The National Institutes of Health report that these occur in a range of 1 in every 40 to 1 in every 100 pregnancies, and the fetus must be removed to save the life of the mother. There was an example from Ireland from about a year ago that is relevant. A woman named Savita Halappanavar, who experienced a miscarriage, died from blood poisoning after having been denied an abortion. Irish law prevented her from having one unless medical professionals thought her life was at risk, and, in most cases, wouldn't perform them even in a case such at this due to legal boundaries and "wanting to play it safe." Therefore, I believe that abortion is a viable choice--and should remain legal--even if I personally don't happen to endorse it. http://www.minnpost.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.thenation.com... http://www.womenscenter.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://www.guttmacher.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.prochoice.org...