War on Women

Just a note before we start, I am not arguing in favour of a 'war on women' - I support women's rights as much as the next person. But my opponent actually seems to be debating this topic:'The government should fund planned parenthood to provide abortion services'.My opponent argues for this, whilst I will argue against it. Since planned parenthood is an American organisation, I will be arguing on the basis of the US law.IntroductionThe first argument made by Con is along the lines of the common rhetoric that abortion should be made open and available to avoid the dangers of illegal abortions. But the problem with this argument is that it is somewhat question-begging (1). This is because the conclusion of the argument (that abortion should be open and available) is only justified if it is previously established that the rights of the foetus should be legally discarded. It is fairly obvious that, if foetuses have no rights, then abortion should be open and available. But if foetuses do have rights (as I will argue), then it is obvious that abortion should not be open and available, just as murder should not be open and available. My opponent seems to assume that the foetus has no rights; she must back up this assertion if she is to defend her argument sufficiently.Foetal rightsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which has been adopted by the United States (3), declares that:'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person' (4)'Everyone' is pretty vague, but the mentioning of 'security of person' implies that 'everyone' is the same as 'every person' in this context.A 'person' is defined as:'a human being regarded as an individual' (5)A foetus is therefore a person, because it is a human being (it is a genetically distinct organism with human DNA) and is regarded as an individual (as opposed to being regarded as a group).It logically follows that a foetus has a right to life, established by the UDHR.Availability of abortionNow it has been established that a foetus has a right to life, it becomes problematic for the pro-abortion position to maintain that abortion should be open and available. If it is made more open and available, this would endanger the rights of the foetus (it stands to reason that more availability of abortion services will increase the frequency of abortions). Since the USA is committed to the UDHR by tha fact that they ratified it, the government shouldn't provide payments to Planned Parenthood to provide abortion services. If it does so, then it is contravening the UDHR.Therefore, from a legal/political perspective, the government is not justified in providing payments to planned parenthood to fund abortion services.'Illegal abortions' argumentMy opponent voices a common argument from the pro-abortion side; the argument that if abortion is not open and available, then many more women will be injured or even die from unsafe, illegal abortions.Even if this is the case, it still does not follow that the government ought to make abortion more available by funding it. This is because the women choose to endanger themselves by consenting to a medical procedure they know has risks. If the women were being forced into having an abortion then it would be completely different, but the fact remains that it is a free choice to endanger their bodies.Because the women choose to endanger themselves, then the government has no obligations to minimise the danger of their choice. Just as a skydiver may choose to jump out of a plane, the fact that he willingly chose to undergo a dangerous procedure means that the government has no obligations to protect him - since he took responsibility for his own welfare once he chose to endanger himself.Therefore, the government has no obligations to protect women in this context, because of the reason that they willingly choose to endanger themselves and therefore take total responsibility for their welfare.ConclusionThe government shouldn't provide payments to Planned Parenthood for abortion services, because:1. It would be an act contrary to the government's obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2. The government has no obligations to protect the welfare of women who willingly choose to endanger their bodies.Your turn, Pro! (1) http://www.nizkor.org...(2) http://www.archives.gov...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.un.org...(5) Google: 'Define person'