The Instigator
Xelleld
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
IndependentTruth
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion violates the Constitution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
IndependentTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 78572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Xelleld

Pro

Decades ago, in 1973, a major verdict had just hit the news. The Supreme Court had just decided in favor of Jane Roe, leading to the legalization of abortion. In the Constitution, written by our founding fathers, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are extremely important elements, vital to the rest of the Constitution, paramount to our God-given rights. So, tell me, if we are to remain a free society, what place does abortion have? It exists only to take away the most vital of rights: life. Abortion, by definition, is a procedure to terminate the life of the unborn child in the womb. In fact, since Roe v. Wade, more than 57 million children have been killed before they were even born. Without giving these children their inalienable, God-given right to live, what will come next? We have already seen the consequences of this merciless bloodbath. Government-funded corporate empires like Planned Parenthood make billions every year, off of a combination of services, some less than legal, as evidenced by the recent undercover Planned Parenthood videos. And so we must ask ourselves, should we be calling this "women's healthcare"? Does a business of killing really qualify as healthcare at all? These questions are all that I wish you ponder. Let's have a nice, clean debate. I wish not to attack each other, but rather that we can better each other through learning from this debate.
IndependentTruth

Con

Thank you for the debate, Pro -- I would like to counter your points in which you state abortion is a violation of the U.S. constitution and additionally counter your assertions in regards to planned parenthood and abortion in general.

C1: Legality of abortion in regards to the Constitution

First off, it is important to understand that no where in the Constitution is the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is found instead in the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, legal protections in regards to life, liberty, and property are found in the 5th amendment, where it states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [1] To delve into the constitutionality of abortion, we needn't look further than one of the most infamous supreme court descisions in history - Roe v Wade, in which by a 7 - 2 decision the legality and right to abortion was affirmed. The court ruled that "a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion." [2] Additionally, the court stated that a person has a right to abortion until viability, which they defined as the abilitity to live outside the mother's womb with or without artificial aid. This is usually considered around 24 to 28 weeks of development.

Most importantly, however, the court ruled that "that the word 'person' as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection." [3] Because of the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly include protection for the unborn, they cannot be considered persons under the law. This means that a woman's right to abortion does not violate the Constitution in any way.

C2: Planned Parenthood

There is a massive misunderstanding of what Planned Parenthood provides to its patients and what the funding it recieves from the federal government goes to. It is imperative to understand that it is illegal for the federal government to fund abortion, as explicitly outlined in the Hyde Amendment. [4] The federal government provides $528.4 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood, none of which goes to abortion due to the Hyde Amendment. Additionally, only 3% of all of Planned Parenthood's services go towards abortion; the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services go towards extremely important issues like STDs, contraception, and cancer screening. [5]



It is also important to realize that the vast majority of patients recieving care from Planned Parenthood are poor, and would have extremely limited health options if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded: "As of 2012, 79 percent of people receiving services from Planned Parenthood lived at 150 percent of the federal poverty level or lower (that comes out to around $18,500 for a single adult)" [6] To see evidence of this in action, we can look at Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker (R) defunded Planned Parenthood in that state. "Walker in 2011 eliminated all state funding to Planned Parenthood, which in turn closed five clinics over the next three years. The loss of those clinics meant women were referred to other facilities, in some cases a considerable distance away, in order to continue getting services." [7]

The State of Indiana has cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing. [8] What Planned Parenthood did is entirely legal and was not done for profit. If the tissue isn't sold into research, it is disposed of at the cost of the clinic.

C3: Outlawing abortion would have terrible effects

Think of what has happened throughout history when a massive service is outlawed. Prohibition saw the rise of organized crime and massive illegal distribution of alcohol and increase in criminal power. The war on drugs saw the number of illegal drug cartels soar and has been responsible for the death or incarceration of thousands of people. What happens when you restrict the ability of people to access a service? They turn to illegal, vastly less safe methods. Outlawing or restricting abortion would cause the many people who truly need it to turn to dangerous and illegal methods, and if unable to recieve these services may even turn to suicide.

"Although self-induced abortion is dangerous under any circumstances, other methods run a higher risk of injury and death. In order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, women [in countries that have outlawed abortion] will drink turpentine, bleach, or livestock manure concoctions. Some will inflict direct injury to the vagina by inserting herbal mixes or inserting foreign objects into the body like a twig or a coat hanger. Some use external injury—jumping from the top of the stairs or from a roof—to induce abortion, as well as inflicting blunt trauma (like punching or kicking) to the abdomen." [9] Even more disturbing, in El Salvador, a country that has completely outlawed abortion, "suicide is the cause of death for 57 percent of pregnant females between the ages of 10 and 19." [10] It's undebatable that restricting women's access to abortion services causes devastating effects. It is imperative that the United States does not continue on the path of further restrictions.

Conclusion:

Not only has the Surpreme Court ruled in a landslide descision the right of women to recieve abortion services, no where in the constitution is the explicit illegality of abortion or protection of the unborn mentioned, nor does any government funding go towards abortion. Additionally, the effects of further restricting or outlawing abortion completely would be devastating on American women and would cause massive spikes in illegal activity and suicides among pregnant teens. As Americans, we need to stand up for the civil liberties of women and say no to restricting the right to abortions before viability.

Sources:

[1] http://www.usconstitution.net...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://law.justia.com...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://www.npr.org...

[6] http://www.gao.gov...

[7] http://www.politifact.com...

[8] http://www.politifact.com...

[9] http://prospect.org...

[10] http://www.reproductiverights.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Xelleld

Pro

I commend your response, Con. It was very well put together.
However, I believe that no matter how small, people are people. And that as they can't stand up for themselves, we must protect every life. All life is precious, and every single one should be able to make a difference in the world. In light of the recent Planned Parenthood videos, I have much mistrust in them and think that PP should cease the activities seen in the videos immediately. Unfortunately, most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well (with the emotional pain only coming to the mother, of course). If we wish to end this pain, we must move away from abortion and towards adoption for mothers that can't support a child. As for the Constitution, no, it does not mention the unborn. However, this makes sense as this was long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy. Before much was known about development of the child while in the womb. As such, I personally believe that under the Constitution, the unborn should be considered people too. Once again, thank you for the great, well-written response.
IndependentTruth

Con

I agree with you, Pro, that abortion is not a noble thing. As a nation it is imperative that we focus on education and prevention in regards to couples who have unwanted pregnancies. Despite this, however, there is simply no evidence to suggest that abortion violates the Constitution. We can argue about when life begins, what makes someone living, when it's too late to get an abortion, etc. -- but all of these things fail to address the fact that the unborn are not explicitly protected under the Constitution.

You claim that you "believe that no matter how small, people are people." That is your belief, which has no relevance to federal law. No where did you counter my assertions that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the unborn. [1]

You reference the heavily edited and spun Planned Parenthood video to make the case that they should stop abortions completely -- despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest PP did anything illegal, and they never sold any fetal tissue for profit. [2]

You say that "most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well." This is a dubious claim, as "89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation." [3] A fetus does not develop a central nervous system until around 10 weeks -- it is incapable of feeling any pain before that point. [4] While it is true that evidence suggests that mothers who have abortions face an increased risk of psychological problems, only "10% of women who have a first-time abortion face immediate physical complications." [5]

You claim that the Constitution should be amended due to the fact that it was written "long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy." This is simply untrue. "The practice of abortion, the medical removal of a fetus, has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques." [6] Abortion is not a new idea, it has existed for as long as women have been getting pregnant. Hell, abortions are even in the Bible. [7] It is simply fallacious to say that the founders didn't know about abortion. If they wanted to specifically protect the unborn, they would have included such language in the Constitution.

Conclusion:

Pro's argument against the constitutionality of abortion is simply ideological. The overwhelming majority of scientific research does not support his claims that abortions cause long lasting physical and emotional trauma for the mother and fetus. Planned Parenthood has not been convicted of any wrong doing, and it has been proven that they have not sold any fetal tissue for profit. Abortion is not a new idea, it has been around since the beginning of humanity -- and if the founders were opposed to it, they would have said so. The dangers of continued restriction of abortion are all too apparent in countries who have already outlawed it, and as a country we can not afford to go down that path.

Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com...

[3] http://www.abort73.com...

[4] http://www.whattoexpect.com...

[5] http://www.birthmothers.org...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Xelleld

Pro

Xelleld forfeited this round.
IndependentTruth

Con

My opponent has forfieted his final round and has additionally failed to meet his BoP regarding the unconstitutionality of abortion.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
Who did I agree with before and after the debate: CON
Who had better conduct: CON - because PRO forfeited his last round.
Who had better spelling and grammar: TIED - both sides had good spelling and grammar and successfully avoided including any mistakes.
Who had more convincing arguments: CON - CON was the only side to actually include any evidence, facts, and / or statistics. PRO did not include any to back up his claims. PRO clearly proved why having an abortion does not violate the constitution by posing accurate rebuttals for his opponents' arguments. CON gave me more reasons to believe his side then his opponent did.
Who had more reliable sources: CON - CON was the only side to actually include a source or facts / statistics. And all his evidence came from reliable websites that fully supported his arguments.
Posted by ModerateLiberalism 2 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
Just to let you know dude, before you debate this, Roe v. Wade decided whether or not you can ban abortion, not whether or not you can allow it. The decision was "you can't ban abortion", not "you can have abortion". Even if Roe v Wade was overturned, it wouldn't instantly mean abortion was illegal.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
By the way guys. We all see the same thing. Please be respectful of the noob snipers and don't tap the glass.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
The constitution says we have a right to life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness fools. Yet politicians want to keep hookers and cocaine illegal when that's what makes me happy
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Let me accept please :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
XelleldIndependentTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Pro had failed to uphold the BOP to prove the resolution and thus Con wins the debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
XelleldIndependentTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.