Abortion should be illegal

FRAMEWORKThis is a policy. It is also a legal debate. Hence, we may distinguish this debate from a moral debate (i.e. abortion is immoral), for laws are not “ought to be(s)” which characterizes morality, but are more of “side-restraints.” Also, as this is a legal debate, we should elaborate on what a "justified law" is. A justified law (a.) punishes the subject on sufficient grounds, (b.) preventsfurther behaviour of the type, and (c.) creates a better society. Often, when (b.) and (c.) are not satisfied, the subject laws are often scrapped. Adultery should be raised up as an example: even though it has adverse effects, men will always be the greatest Freudians.The Proposition has failed to provide a complete policy. The policy Con presents:1.) That the abortion shall happen in the first trimester of the pregnancy (Trimester Policy)2.) That the abortion shall happen in a safe environment (Environment Policy)3.) That the abortion shall be consented and not coerced (Consent Policy)The policy of Proposition is that abortion should be illegal on all instances except when a women's life is threatened or serious injury is certain. Hence, his BoP is to show that a policy containing those elements would be a justified law. The opposition's BoP, on the other hand, is to prove that the opposition's policy (the status quo) would be much more beneficial than the proposition's.ARGUMENTS1.Health and Socio-Economic ProblemsIn this argument, I will attempt to demonstrate the pro-life legislations have adverse effects on individuals and society that can only be solved via pro-choice legislations.When a pregnancy is questioned but legal restrictions are in place, an unsafe abortion (a procedure for terminating a pregnancy either by individuals without the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards or both) is most likely to follow. The WHO reports that “[because of unsafe abortions] 68,000 women die as a result, and millions more have complications, many permanent.” This alone amounts to nothing. However, “[in countries where abortion is legally restricted,] the median ratio for unsafe abortion mortality is 34 deaths per 100,000 live births.” [2] This seems to be caused via the strict abortion legalization in countries. The Guttmacher Institute reports that “highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates…abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries.” (more on this later) [3] On the other hand, after the South African government approved the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1996, it was soon shown that all abortion related deaths because of child-bearing was reduced to practically nil. [4] South Africa is not alone. In Romania, abortion was deemed illegal in 1966 by the ruling “Communist” elite. In 23 years, the deaths via abortion-related complications rose seven-fold. Before the laws, there were 20 deaths per 100,000 live births because of abortion. In 1989, when the Communist elites fell, this number rose to 148 per 100,000. [5] There are three overlying conclusions that must henceforth be made from these facts. The first one is that abortion criminalization will not stop abortions (1)-it will simply drive them underground. This causes a rise in unsafe abortions (2), which could have many implications on the women and society. These two problems arise only because abortion is illegal-and this dilemma can only be solved by the decriminalization of abortion (3), which allows for clinics to work under legal standards and restraints.Apart from health-effects of unsafe abortions, socio-economic effects of abortion can also affect society as a whole. In a country where abortion is criminalized, huge amounts of unwanted children may be conceived. These children are called “denied abortions.” These children experience huge challenges. A study done in Finland has shown that these denied abortions usually have a significantly higher frequency of infant mortality (24 deaths per 1000 as compared to normal country rates of 2 per 1000). [6] DA (Denied Abortion) Children who do actually live pass the age of one are then faced with other problems. In a follow up of the famed “Prague Study,” it was found that DA adults had a significantly higher amount of psychiatric problems. [7] The effects are as bad on the children as on the parents. 6% of parents who were refused abortions were more likely to suffer from physical intimate partner violence (PIPV) as apart from the 3% recorded than the control parents. [8] In more socio-economic terms, DA has led to changes in the composition of the society. We should recall the case of Romania. It was noted by Prof. Cristian Pop-Eleches that after the 1966 Abortion ban came into place, DA children had “lower educational and labor market achievements as adults.” In his study, DA children, when put in comparison with a control group, were 1.7% less likely to finish High-School. The probability of DA individuals to work in high-skill jobs also decreased by 0.7%, which leads us to the unsettling conclusion that the abortion bans can affect the GDP of the country. (Prof. Eleches notes that “The effect is potentially greater since the census data records employment patterns very early in the career of the people I study, when there is less variability in outcomes across individuals.”) [9] In the United States, however, after the famed Roe v. Wade case, it was soon shown that the number of orphan adoptions decreased by 30%, signifying that the number of orphans (unwanted children) decreased. [10] This leads us to three conclusions. The first is that denied abortions can lead to a significant increase in infant mortality (1). The families of the DA children then have to face with huge familial and individual problems (2). This leads to society-wide impacts in education and workforce composition which can only be solved with pro-choice legislations (3).2. Anti-Abortion Laws and Decision-MakingIn this argument, I shall show that anti-abortion laws are useless and do not serve in anyway to prevent abortion as the basic choice-making processes are often irrational.The number one aim of anti-abortion law is to prevent abortions from happening and to punish those who undergo such operations. The logic in this is that if abortion laws are necessarily Draconian enough, they will serve to prevent women from getting abortions (even if they are pregnant). However, this logic is inherently flawed. This logic is rational in outlook (people often deliberate the consequences of an action via balancing the utility of one outcome against another), but the Rational Choice Theory (RCT) has never been sufficiently satisfactory for many criminologists and neurologists. Some scientists have called the RCT unscientific, as it is always verifiable, but not always falsifiable. As Geoffrey M. Hodgson explains, “because utility is unobservable, all kinds of behaviour can be ‘explained’ in terms of the idea, without fear of refutation.” [11] Apart from this, the RCT does not commonly take into account factors such as psychosocial development and emotions that are often attached to the object. For example, research has noted that a patient who had significant brain damage “[that although] standard tests of intelligence and memory failed to detect any significant changes, [the patient’s] everyday behaviour was highly irrational.” [12] Moreover, the RCT experiments assume that we have perfect and conscious free-will. However, as the famous Libet studies found out, the readiness potential of an action often comes 550 m.sec before the conscious decision to actually do the action. [13] These arguments often lead to one conclusion: that even if abortion laws are Draconian, or emplaced, abortion cannot be prevented. This claim is consistent with reality. In source [3], I quoted the Guttmacher Institute on the high amounts of abortion in legally restrictive regions. Uganda should be taken as an example. Uganda has one of the highest abortion rates in the world (54 per 1000 women), yet it has Draconian laws against abortion. [14] This seems to be a regional trend. A graph made by Dr. Gilda Sedgh, who statistically analyzed the abortion statistics, were able to come up with the following graph: Concluding with the fact that “abortion rate is lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws,” [15] Dr. Gilda’s opinion corresponds with that of the WHO: that Draconian abortion laws do not prevent abortion.CONCLUSIONFrom these two empirically supported arguments, we are ultimately led to the mere fact that abortion should be legal-as it prevents health risks, creates a better socio-economic condition for the citizens of the country, and pro-life legislations would be useless as they simply do not deter women from getting an abortion. The resolution is NEGATED!CITATIONS[2]http://www.who.int...[3]http://www.guttmacher.org...[4]http://tinyurl.com...[5]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6]https://birthpsychology.com...[7]http://www.rhm-elsevier.com...(06)27219-7/pdf[8]https://apha.confex.com...[9]http://www.columbia.edu...[10]https://www.guttmacher.org...[11] http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org...[12] http://www.indecs.eu...[13] http://www.bethinking.org...[14] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...[15] https://www.guttmacher.org...