Head-2-Head: Abortion: A Woman's Right to Choose, page 1

First, I would like to thank Chissler for this thread and the guidelines and rules set forth, which makes this very exciting opportunity, for my first debate, possible.

To my opponent clearwater, I thank you also for this opportunity. I look forward to a good debate and wish you well, my new friend.

In this debate, I endeavor to show that the right to choose an abortion, which is already legal in most countries, is not only a choice protected by law, but is a woman’s inherent natural human right to choose when, why, and if she has children, or interrupts the process post-conception, and why having such a choice is vital, as well as endeavoring to show, that being forced to have an unwanted baby by those who oppose abortion would have ramifications for mother and child which would fail society and humankind two-fold.

To begin, I'd like to pre-empt the usual hype around the topic of abortion, by discussing the titles most associated with the debate, the ‘right to choose’ vs. ‘the right to life,’ and the term ‘pro-life’ as they really are misnomers for the debate about abortion and a woman’s ‘right to choose.’ The title of ‘right to choose’ is often misunderstood, while the title of ‘right to life’ or being ‘pro-life’ is entirely misleading.

In the most logical and literal sense, the right to choose actually supports the right to life and is a very positive position. Those who believe in a woman’s right to choose do not believe abortion is the only answer to unwanted pregnancies, but is a viable one, and should be a woman’s choice.

The right to choose abortion is not about being anti-life, murder or about sin, though the opposition to a woman’s right to choose abortion does try to melodramatically paint such a picture. The use of the title of ‘right to life’ and ‘pro life’ are deceptive, implying they hold the positive position in the debate, and are protecting life, when in fact, they intend to create circumstances that would degrade or ruin lives.

The issue of a woman’s right to choose to obtain abortion, and abortion itself, is not about the death of a baby, or murder, as the extremists like to try to portray it as. Abortion, and the legal right to choose it, instead is really about the right to life, a woman’s life, and her rights to make choices to secure her quality of life.

It is that simple. Those who truly believe they support life by being anti abortion, or who are sympathetic or supportive of the so called right to life movement should realize, legal abortion is a viable way of exercising a woman’s own right to life.

I think is important to make this distinction and to point out what many people do not realize, even those who consider themselves pro-life, and that is, that the terms ‘right to choose’ and ‘right to life’ by literal and actual definition of the words, and applied to the actual reasons for abortion, are really synonymous.

The opposition to abortion would have you believe otherwise, but truly, the choice to have an abortion is about a woman preserving her own life, health, and well being, and protecting society and children from the undue burden of unwanted and possibly abused and neglected children.

Both terms, the right to choose and the right to life, can be applied to a woman’s right to make her own appropriate choices regarding securing her own privacy, reproductive choices and rights, and her own quality of life.The actual so-called right to life movement, is often known as, or associated as being pro life, but what they really want is to strip away the choice for a woman to secure her own right to her own life, for the cause of the potential of life in the tissues within her person.

Not everyone who is anti-abortion, or part of the right to life movement is actually pro life by definition, but they are merely ignorant of what they support as much as what they oppose. Here, I will often call them what they actually are, simply anti-abortion or anti-choice.

To oppose abortion, or a woman’s right to choose, based on the premise of protecting the right to life is ignorant and illogical. I do not see how is it logical to weigh the fact a woman exists as a person, with the fact the product of conception only has the potential for life, as equal. Or worse yet, that the woman even has less right to life than that which merely holds the potential for life. The woman’s human rights should not be negated for the cause of the potential for life.

For the women who choose abortion, the interruption of an untimely or otherwise unwanted pregnancy, and the expulsion of the product of conception, helps to ensure they have the opportunities and choices in their life they have a natural right to. Opportunities such as finishing school, obtaining higher education, securing or continuing a career, and control over when, with whom, and if, to raise children, or in some cases, how many children they have and raise. It is also a choice that affords them the opportunity to do what they feel is necessary, to secure their own physical health and psychological well being.

So, let me give the facts, without the melodrama often accompanied by the opposition to abortion. Abortion is defined as the expulsion of the products of conception before the embryo or fetus is viable. Any interruption of the process of a human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion.

There are three kinds of abortion, known as spontaneous abortion, therapeutic abortion, and abortion. The first, spontaneous abortion, also known as miscarriage, which signifies the delivery of a nonviable embryo or fetus due to factors outside of a woman’s choice or medical practitioner’s control, is more common in the first 6 weeks, and often occurs without a woman’s knowledge even.

A therapeutic abortion is an induced abortion performed to preserve the health or the very life of the mother, and is one of the reasons a woman may choose abortion.

To purposely induce a miscarriage, due to a woman’s choice, and her basic natural human rights of securing her quality of life, is known as an abortion.

In the United States, the central court decision that created current abortion laws, making the choice for abortion legal is Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973)

In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that women had a constitutional right to abortion.

Historically, long before Roe vs Wade in the US, there is evidence that suggests pregnancies were terminated, abortions performed, through a variety of ancient methods. Abortion dates back to at least 300 BC. In earliest documentation, it is known there was the administration of certain abortifacient herbs and natural remedies to end undesired pregnancies, as well as the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and many other techniques. These methods along with history of abortion dates back to ancient times, according to anthropologists.

Today, almost two-thirds of the world’s population of women reside in countries where interrupting an unwanted pregnancy, abortion, is a choice women can legally make, though often still morally condemned by religious leaders and the anti-abortion zealots who claim they fight for the cause of the unborn, when more accurately it is usually a mass of cells or tissue they actually fight for rights for. When they fight for the right to life, it is actually only the potential for life they fight for, and in doing so, they hypocritically seek to deny the basic human right to life for another, in denying the pregnant woman her own right to life, a quality of life, a life of her choice and hopes and dreams.

However, those extremists are not the only weak link in the anti-abortion, or so called right to life movement, as the movement itself lacks in logic and reason in general, and is archaically heavily biased by religion. However, to comply with most religious dictates, they should realize their own sin in judging others. According to their own reasoning that abortion is sin, and God and religion are on their side, then it would stand to reason, they should abide by their own God’s rule, and let Him be judge, not them. They should, by their own standards, allow God to decide the moral issues and laws and let Him deal with those that trespass them.

So, the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement need realize and acknowledge what they are fighting for is to prevent professionally sound medically performed abortions, making them illegal, so thus preventing the right for a woman to receive good medical care in receiving an abortion and trading it for something much more evil than they claim abortion itself is.

Those that are anti abortion, or so called right to life supporters who petition to have laws prohibiting abortion, serve to perpetuate cycles of child abuse and return to the times where back-alley abortions by anyone claiming to be a doctor or nurse are performed in the worse ways and in the worse places. Back to the times of back alley butchers who would leave the young woman to die or be permanently scarred and infertile by botched and careless abortions. Or back to the archaic methods of trying to perform an abortion on one’s self.

The basic fact the anti abortion or right to life movement denies to themselves, is that they can not stop abortion. We know of it’s practice since 300 BC and we logically can conclude women will seek to end unwanted pregnancies as long as unwanted pregnancies are a reality. It is their inherent maternal choice, legal or not.

The ruining of the life of a woman or endangering the physical and psychological well being of her, or a baby or child resulting from an unwanted pregnancy and denial of access to a safe legal abortion, can not be pro anything, or considered supporting the right to any life, when it would in fact act to destroy lives. To deny abortions and degrade the quality of life for the woman, and the unwanted child, is a disservice to both them and to society in general.

Men are not the root of all evil, they are the father's of children, and it is fact not opinion that of the half of marriages that end in divorce - only 25% of those men dutifully support their children financially. Many people no longer marry before having children, in those cases there is less instance of paternal financial contribution than when there are legal contracts facilitating court ordered child support. It is fact not opinion that 95% of men never miss a car payment - and the comparison illustrates a social bias. While cars are essential to the current global economy, there would be no one to buy them without women.

It is fact, not opinion, that the lack of economic reward for the unique qualities of female contributions to society are examples of the social oppression that results from the enforced dependence inherent in child-birth and raising children. The jobs of birthing children and raising them are essential to the perpetuation of a work-force, and they are exploited as free labor. Female contributions to the world are real work and deserve to be recognized economically. They are not incidental to life, but responsible for it's very essentials and taken so much for granted that the life they contribute is now also considered incidental and disposable.

That tiring aspects of the traditional abortion debate lay in the exclusion of addressing the social and economic dependency inherent in child-birth. Presenting abortion as the only option to preserving a woman's access to education and gainful employment is not a choice, it's a dilemma. A dilemma that cannot be dismissed by simply dehumanizing the prenates growing within her womb. Mothers grieving a miscarriage needn't carry guilt with their loss. Women who have undergone abortion will carry the social stigma and guilt loudly encouraged by those who see child birth as justification for oppression.

If the only two options available to women are illegal or legal abortion, the choices are dire - making the biological dependency resulting from childbirth a tool of oppression. The strident opinions that promote scathing injunctions against women who have had an abortion, while neglecting to provide any viable alternative, is an obvious example of exploiting the personal guilt of a conflict in order to divert responsibility.

We already live with the burden of a welfare state, only the welfare is predominately given to corporate entities with the rationalization of creating corporate competitiveness in an economy that has been globalized - making national laws and measures designed to protect and shape society unenforcible. A nations power to enforce those laws is defunct as a result of the power of that economic coercion. Analogous to the economic coercion underlying elective abortion. The fact that the increase of profits is the sole determinant of corporate policy provides a good reason for not financially recognizing the value of what is essentially female slavery.

Laws and measures that ensure wage parity,day care and maternal leave are the measures needed in order to create more freedom for women, not less. Ensuring the recognition of their work, lessens their dependency on zealots who exploit the vulnerability of her biological position. Corporate policy now dictates social policy and it is reasonable to look to them for responsible civilization building ethics.

It is reasonable to provide both married and unmarried women, the day care, and wage parity as well as access to education that insure healthy social environments. Not long ago, child birth was society's justification for excluding women from education and the work force. It appears to still be the justification forcing her lack of competitiveness in the job market.

Statistics surrounding abortion are notoriously unreliable, even so, the statistics you cite show that well over half of the elective reasons cited are due to economic reasons: The 42% of unmarried women present a single wage earner - who will spend some time unable to work without day-care. Presumably that is an economic incentive, since many women who are established financially are now free to have a child without the social stigma that once accompanied children born out of wedlock. In some countries, they are now able to purchase sperm over the internet for that purpose.

The 38% who say it would interfere with education, job or career - are again citing economic coercions easily made irrelevant by proper maternal leave, wage parity and access to day care. The same can be said of the 34% of students preparing to study - the reason cited shows that the enforced dependency of child birth and raising children still excludes women from opportunity. The 28% who can't afford the baby or child care is self explanatory, as well as the 22% of unemployed. Our economic system requires at least an 11% unemployment rate to be competitive, not surprisingly women, with their biological disadvantage comprise a large portion of that. Of those employed, the wages reflect a recalcitrant 60 cents to the male dollar disparity. Same for the 14% who cite not enough support from husband or partner. That amounts to 178% of reasons cited as economic. The incongruity presented by percentiles exceeding 100% needn't be labored.

It can be argued that the 25% of people who have abortions because they don't want people to know they had sex or got pregnant as well as the 22% who assert they are too young, exemplify the underlying social biases that perpetuate the secondary status of women. Only 17% of sexually active youth report using contraceptives. Presumably this is not due to the lack of their availability - unless a woman can't afford the medical care necessary to obtain them - but due to social pressures that prevent young women the esteem necessary to demand protective measures. Add to that the example of women who are coerced into child birth for religious reasons by those they are dependent on - greater recognition of the value of female work as well as the opportunity to have access to equal financial and social independence eliminates those coercions.

Of the 38% who have completed their child-bearing years, the question can be asked why simple and reversible vasectomies are not performed more often in long term relationships where children are a part of the family structure. Vasectomies are now a reversible procedure, and the aversion to them also evinces a social double standard that hinges on the secondary status of women.

Leaving only 25% citing health reasons - and a very small 1.5% citing rape or incest. So the overwhelming conclusion based on those statistics is that elective abortions are performed as a result of the forced economic dependency that accompanies childbirth.

The disadvantage or lack of education endemic to poverty is not the cause of abusing children. Poverty can lead to neglect or encourage an emotional bankruptcy that can prevent proper nurturing, but the underlying psychological dynamic of child abuse is a power dynamic. A power dynamic that, it can be argued, is also reflected in the subjugation of women via economic dependency. It is exploited by cowards in all economic stratospheres. There are more than enough examples of abused children from rich homes to show that poverty is not the cause of that behavior.

The higher the income, the less likely prosecution for the crime, so financial security may actually decrease an abused child's ability to get help. It's difficult to look upon suffering, but the hidden evils are worse by their banality. To suggest a prenate is better off dead than risking the possibility of neglect or abuse can be interpreted as despair. All of life involves struggles, failures and triumphs - any opportunity to experience them is eliminated by abortion.

A prenate is not simply tissue. Once fertilized, DNA within the egg is actualizing all of the potential for human life. To abort a viable prenate is not simply the disposal of a tumor, it is the interruption of a creature preparing itself for life in the world. Many women mourn their miscarriages with the same intensity they do a still born infant or lost child.

While it takes two people to create a viable prenate, one doesn't often hear disparaging remarks made against the male promiscuity that contributes to unwanted pregnancy. Men who will never miss a car payment, but neglect to provide for their own children. The corporate world does not want to recognize a woman's unique contribution to society with reasonable maternal leave any more than they wish to provide pensions for retired workers.

Perhaps it's for that reason, men financially abandon their children, to rationalize the ever increasing hardships of survival. The number of workers with access to maternal leave and pensions is relatively small and shrinking. Bolstered by economic globalism that permits exploitation of more vulnerable markets. It is evident it's the corporate world dictating government policy.

To cast aspersions on a woman for choosing economic competitiveness over almost certain poverty, is to divert attention from the social conditions all are responsible for and capable of shaping. Moreover, it encourages the degradation of life perpetuated by the lack of financial recompense for female labor.

I certainly agree with my opponent on one point, if there is such a thing as judgment - the self righteous religiosity of those judging and casting blame on vulnerable women, while at the same time providing no viable social alternative to the enforced dependence of the free labor of child birthing and childrearing - may be surprised to find, that they are first in line to be judged for for any physical, spiritual, social, mental, emotional or moral damage that may be caused by abortion.

For those in a position of advantage, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.