Abortion

To clarify for all, donald. keller said, I am arguing for a woman to have the right to an abortion (in an approved clinic), and not just in situations of rape or incest that end up in pregnancies. I will argue the pro-choice point of view of the issue, and the Con will argue the pro-life side. My first argument is a simple one. I support the choice of a woman to have an abortion because:It is an American woman's fundamental right, due to Roe v. Wade. On January 22nd, 1973, a near unanimous decision was made by the Supreme Court, that for a woman to have an abortion would be her "fundamental right", and to this day remains the law of the land. The decision stated that when it comes to this issue for women, they are entitled to privacy. The court decision also stated: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "[1]Whether the decision was made by the Supreme Court or not, my second argument would still stand:It is the right of a woman to have an abortion. I'm sure the Con will bring up the argument that "a fetus is a person", and while I do not mind if he uses that as a basis for his argument, I do not intend to base the entire debate on the person hood of a fetus. However, when it comes to fetuses, we must recognize that it cannot survive on its own; this meaning that it is essentially a part of the mother. Being a part of the mother, she has the undeniable right to do with it whatever she wishes. Just like it's completely a person's right to refuse to donate their organs, even if the life of another person would be saved by doing so. [2]On a side note, isn't it quite hypocritical when the usual pro-life advocate, conservatives, absolutely hate when the government tells them what to do-- but that they're completely fine with the notion that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies? Pro-life advocates argue that the fetus has a "right to life". I think that it is infallible to say that the life of a fetus should not be valued over the life of an already-born, independent (not directly relying on another source of life to live), human woman. In the same exact way, these women have a right to life without the government or other people imposing these choices upon them! As I have just briefly covered, this leads to my third argument:The safety and health of a woman is valued over an unborn fetus. This idea is nothing new. In fact, many conservatives also support the idea, and it is a bipartisan agreement when it comes to the issue of abortion. In fact, in the recently introduced and killed House Resolution 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it is suggested that abortion be banned after a certain amount of time, with certain exceptions:"It creates exceptions in the case of risk of death or permanent injury of the mother, in case of rape, and in the case of incest against a minor. "[3]When the life of the woman is at risk because of her pregnancy, she still has the right to an abortion. Matter of fact, its her "super-guaranteed right" in situations like those. And it just so happens, that childbirth is one of the most dangerous things that can happen to a woman. The mortality rate of women and the unborn children- even in hospitals- is surprisingly high, and should still be considered a serious risk. [4] A pregnant woman has a right to choose not to take that risk, for herself and for the fetus. It also goes to say, Roe v. Wade did not mark the beginning of abortions, it was the end of women dying as a result of them. When women were denied abortions, more than likely, they would find a way to terminate their pregnancy anyways. I am a strong believer that we, as a country, are beyond the times of back alley abortions and terminated pregnancies with wire hangers. We should be far beyond the point of ignoring the rights of women as human beings capable of choice. This leads to my final argument:Abortion is sometimes beneficial. When I say this, I don't mean to take a Freakonomics approach to the issue. ([5]) I also don't mean it in the sense that it would be perfectly fine for "would-be terrible people" to never have been born. I mean this by the fact that it is better for the child to simply not be born into a "would-be terrible environment". Often times, a woman seeking an abortion is doing so because she knows that she wouldn't be able to provide for that child. It's also a generally accepted idea, that it would be better for a child to have never been born than to have to grow up hungry and thirsty, without a roof over their heads, or even experiencing constant abuse from either parent due to other circumstances. Just like putting an animal out of its misery, abortion would avert the problem in the first place. A baby should also not come into this world unwanted, to avoid half of the problems that would come with it from the parents. Thanks again to the Con for accepting this debate, I look forward to his arguments. [1] . http://caselaw.findlaw.com...[2] . https://www.academia.edu...[3] . https://www.govtrack.us...[4] . http://www.slate.com...[5] . http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...