War on Women
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
The 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.
The 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 abortion
Now 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' argument
My 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.
The 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!
(5) Google: 'Define person'
The fact that you spend so much time arguing about abortion and/or the rights of a "fetus" (an argument that is still ongoing in supreme court to determine at which point is a fetus considered "a life"), I would like to point out some laws that have already been passed in the United States about abortion rights. In 1973, U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion during the Roe vs. Wade case, affirming the legality of a woman"s right to have an abortion under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. Having said all that, I would like to go back to my initial argument.
The argument I was making was that if the government fails to fund for family planning services to the low-income and minority group in an outpatient clinic (which is less costly), it can lead to more financial burden on the government funded health care system such as the Medicaid program because these services will then have to be provided in the hospital, possibly in an emergency situation thus costing more to the tax payers. To ignore the statistics of abortion and say that if abortion is open and available then the frequency of abortion will increase is a naive misconception and a gross rejection of reality.
According to the CDC, in 2011 there were 730, 322 legal induced abortions reported as compared to 2010, where the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased by 5% and the abortion ratio decreased by 4%. Also, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio decreased by 13%, 14% and 12%. Has these numbers decreased due to (Uncle sugar failing to fund programs such as planned parenthood or women learning to control their libido "comments made by Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Jan 23, 2015") or the exact reason is unknown. But what is known and a fact is that not only is it a financial burden, it"s unconstitutional if the woman does not receive services that have already been established as her constitutional right to have an abortion under Roe vs. Wade. As my opponent so elegantly quoted, the UDHR, 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person', I would like to remind him that the woman also has that right to her life with liberty and security.
Once again, my argument is to provide funding to ALL services provided by programs such as planned parenthood and not only the abortion procedure. I am not trying to argue for pro-abortion or against anti-abortion.
Hopefully, my argument is more clear.
I apologise for misunderstanding Con's arguments, although she could have made it clearer in round 1.
From what I can gather, this debate is instead over whether the government should provide funding for planned parenthood for all of their services, including but not limited to the abortion procedure.
Now I will address some of my opponent's points, then summarise my own arguments that explain why the government shouldn't provide funding for planned parenthood for all of their services.
'I would like to point out some laws that have already been passed in the United States about abortion rights. In 1973, U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion during the Roe vs. Wade case, affirming the legality of a woman"s right to have an abortion under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.'
This is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Just because abortion is declared to be a right by law, this doesn't mean they are right. There have been many wrong laws throughout history, such as segregation, slavery and rape-within-marriage which were all legal.
My point being, simply stating that abortion is legal has no bearing on whether it should be legal. Applying to this debate, stating that abortion is legal doesn't mean that the government is justified in funding it through Planned Parenthood.
'The argument I was making was that if the government fails to fund for family planning services to the low-income and minority group in an outpatient clinic (which is less costly), it can lead to more financial burden on the government funded health care system such as the Medicaid program because these services will then have to be provided in the hospital, possibly in an emergency situation thus costing more to the tax payers.'
Con is making a false dichotomy between:
A) The government funds these services
B) Nobody funds these services
But there's a third option - Planned Parenthood fund them! Planned Parenthood brought in around $634 million in 2008, so they can use that to provide their services. They also have nearly $1 billion in net assets. Planned Parenthood is 'extraordinarily wealthy in its own right, and does not need tax dollars to continue to operate.'(1) Why should they be entitled to government funding for services they can fund themselves?
'To ignore the statistics of abortion and say that if abortion is open and available then the frequency of abortion will increase is a naive misconception and a gross rejection of reality.'
This is neither a 'naive misconception' or a 'gross rejection of reality'. It is a proven fact that restrictions on the availability of abortion decrease the frequency of them. I will present the evidence:
Firstly, Poland heavily restricted abortion in in 1993, and consequently saw a drop from ~130,000 abortions per year in the mid-1980s to ~160 per year in 1999-2004. (2)
Secondly, banning abortion would deter most women from having one. (3)
Thirdly, in the US, a study concluded that the number of abortions decreased by 22.22% from 1990 to 2005, and wrote that 'one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level.' (4)
Therefore, it is pretty conclusive that restricting abortion can decrease the amount of abortions; and likewise, making abortion more available will increase the amount of abortions.
'it"s unconstitutional if the woman does not receive services that have already been established as her constitutional right to have an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.'
She can still receive services that she has a 'constitutional right' for (there is no law preventing her from doing so), but this does not mean that the government should pay for her to receive such services. All Roe vs. Wade established was that it was unconstitutional to ban abortion; it places no obligation for the state to provide free abortions.
'As my opponent so elegantly quoted, the UDHR, 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person', I would like to remind him that the woman also has that right to her life with liberty and security.'
Abortion is a conflict between a foetus's right to life and a woman's right to liberty. In conflicts between individuals' rights, we have to ask who's rights are infringed the most. Abortion totally obliterates the foetus's life, liberty and security, whereas not having an abortion only infringes a little on the mother's liberty. Therefore, having an abortion violates more human rights to a greater degree than not having one, so abortion cannot be justified by appealing to a woman's right to liberty. The right to liberty establishes the right to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others. As Zechariah Chafee wrote:
'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins' (5)
In other words, a right to liberty is only a right up to the point at which it harms others. After this point, it isn't a right.
Finally, I would like to make a final argument why Planned Parenthood should be defunded for all services, based on the fact that funding Planned Parenthood's other services will indirectly fund abortion services.
P1: The majority of the American electorate oppose their tax dollars being used for abortion
P2: If the US government funds Planned Parenthood, the electorate's tax dollars will be used, albeit indirectly, for abortion
P3: A US governmental action that goes against the will of the majority of the electorate is undemocratic
C: The US government's funding of Planned Parenthood is undemocratic.
P1 is true because polls show that 60-70% of taxpayers oppose their tax dollars being used for abortion. (6)
P2 is true because government funding of Planned Parenthood frees up resources that are then used for abortion. (7)
P3 is obviously true. A democracy is a government that acts according to the will of the people. Hence if it acts against the wishes of the majority will of the people, it is acting undemocratically.
The conclusion logically follows from the premises. Since the funding of Planned Parenthood is undemocratic, it contradicts the entire status of the US government as a democratic government.
Back to you, Con!
(3) Reardon, David - Aborted Women: Silent No More
ninernation forfeited this round.
I extend all arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round. This is poor conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.