The Instigator
claypigeon
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
danny445
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

(plz read carefully, I advocate abortion) To improve abortion laws, Roe v Wade should be repealed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 2998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

claypigeon

Pro

Welcome to this crazy debate. I advocate repealing Roe V. Wade so that abortion can become more easily attainable. I argue that Roe V Wade places unfair and unjust restrictions on women. To make it clear to whomever takes this debate, I am for legalized abortion.

Some history of Roe V Wade from wikipedia

"The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother")"

My argument stems only from this passage. I know wikipedia isn't the most scholarly source so if necessary I will find the actual opinion that states these facts.

I only hope to prove that Roe V Wade places unfair and unjust restrictions on women.

1. Trimesters?

The Supreme Court divides fetal time into trimesters. This is done ambiguously. there is nothing separating a fetus that is 6 months old from one who is 6 months and a day. Developmentally, the fetus doesn't become significantly different (in regards to whether we can view the fetus as a human life) between 5 and 7 months. This is sheer ambiguity. Why does this matter? Because one CANNOT get an abortion after the second trimester unless the fetus is not viable (with all the medicinal help in the world) or if the mother's life is in significant danger. Almost all fetus' can survive after being six months old due to medical technology now so the viability issue is moot. The only way to have an abortion after 6 months is if the mother is in danger.

2. Defining life.

In effect, the supreme court defined when life started. After 6 months or the second trimester, the fetus is a human life. Whether one agrees with this or not, the supreme court does not have the ability to define what life is. If anything the medical community should and they were not consulted to make this decision.

One can argue that the fetus is considered a life after the first trimester as states can regulate abortion after 3 months. I wouldn't go so far as saying the fetus is considered a human at this point as abortion is still legal, but the methods used to abort can be regulated.

Examples of this are the ban on partial birth abortions.

3. What this means?

Women cannot get an abortion after 6 months due to Roe V Wade, unless the health of the mother is in danger. This applies to everyone, including raped women or those kidnapped, etc.

Women cannot get all the different types of abortions after 3 months. One type of abortion is not equivalent to another. Some are much better than other sin certain situations. Chemical abortion (which is the real reason abortion rates have gone down as chemical abortion isn't counted) is great early on but not late. Surgical abortion is alright later but aborting the fetus in more gruesome ways is cheaper and healthier for the mother sometimes. I see no benefit from outlawing or mandating regulation of this abortion but I do see an infringement on liberty.

The supreme court deciding what is "human life" is troublesome too but doesn't have much relevance to my case yet. I figured I'd put it out there.

Good luck. I hope someone can rebut me well as whenever I say I want to repeal Roe V Wade to further support abortion I get yelled at for being a conservative. If you can prove me wrong, maybe I'll stop advocating this position and quit getting yelled at.

Also, I am only putting this last bit in as the last debate I posted, the opponent didn't read my opening argument. I am not arguing over goodness or badness of abortion. I simply am trying to find out whether Roe V Wade places unjust and/or unfair restrictions on women in regards to abortion.
danny445

Con

I would like to first open by saying that I see this as being a very unique and rather odd debate. I have never seen anyone that is for abortion want to repeal Roe V. Wade. Secondly, before I start, I would like to second your motion that Wikipedia is by no means a generally accepted scholarly website, however, with certain hot topics their are people that really regulate the information, this is one of them, therefore we will use the quotes you provided.

---"The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother")"

The very fact that you feel that Roe V Wade places unfair and unjust restrictions on women is simply rather odd, because prior to this abortion was not legally allowed. Roe V Wade removed restrictions on abortion, leaving it up to the state to decide, which in turn leaves it up to the people, through electing representatives, etc.

--You said: "The Supreme Court divides fetal time into trimesters. This is done ambiguously. there is nothing separating a fetus that is 6 months old from one who is 6 months and a day." AND "the supreme court does not have the ability to define what life is. If anything the medical community should and they were not consulted to make this decision."

In fact it was not the supreme court that divided fetal time into trimesters, it was indeed the medical community that had done this long before the court case. Why? because specific and undeniable developmental features are characteristic in each stage, the supreme court simply followed the different developmental stages that were already established to make a decision. In fact they did this in order to allow abortions. Before Roe V Wade abortions were not supreme court supported, Roe V Wade established legal first trimester abortions, and left the rest up to the state. Once again I don't see how going from illegal abortions, to allowing abortions as being unfair to woman who want abortions.

--You said: "Women cannot get an abortion after 6 months due to Roe V Wade, unless the health of the mother is in danger. This applies to everyone, including raped women or those kidnapped, etc."

To be honest, the fact that a woman is allowed to have an abortion before 6 months seems to be REALLY fare. I myself wont inject my opinions into this debate, however, 6 months is really plenty of time to make the decision and get it done. You throw out there that women who are raped are stripped of the right to have an abortion. However, if a woman is raped, she should be aware of the risk of pregnancy, and determine the status before 6 months, a clue would be a missed period. Waiting 6 months is just not responsible, seeing as each day the baby develops more and more, and eventually crosses that fuzzy line of being defined as human or not.

--you said: "I see no benefit from outlawing or mandating regulation of this abortion but I do see an infringement on liberty."

After 6 months most of the medical world would agree that the baby is in fact a human. You seemed to desire the support of the medical world, and there it is. If the baby is to be delivered in America, this in result makes the baby an American. Allowing an American to be killed, is in fact an infringement on one of the protected rights of the constitution: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whereas the mother, is not denied of her life, or of her happiness, and at this point her liberty cannot be protected seeing as it infringes on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of another American.

The definition of "repeal" : "A repeal is the removal or reversal of a law. This is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned"

The very premise of Roe V. Wade established abortion rights, and a womans right to choose. The repeal of this law, would essentially define it as causing more negative than positive. No abortion rights at all, to someone who is for abortion, is not better than some abortion rights, or defined abortion rights.
Debate Round No. 1
claypigeon

Pro

Yay, someone willing to debate this topic.

Some history before Roe v Wade.

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a simply Federal issue. I think like 27 states had laws against abortion in some form but by no means was abortion in America completely illegal. It was regulated and certain (many) areas banned. Roe V Wade made it so the state/people had no say in whether abortion was legal before 3 months and some say after 3 months and no say after 6 months. Looking at it on a state by state level abortion was illegal in some places so for the rest of the debate I say we focus on the availability of abortion on a state level.

1. Trimesters

Trimesters were as you said based off of parts of the medical community. There was in no way shape or form total agreeement on the medical community and how we should divide fetal time but a precedent was there so I'll concede that point. However the medical community can relatively easily change its stance on things (masturbation, circumcision etc.) The Supreme court cannot. Getting an abortion after 6 months is and always will be illegal (unless the mother is in danger). If we eventually define human life as starting later, and there are viable explanations for putting human life starting at birth, or years after birth, then aborting a fetus that is not "human" per se would still be illegal. I advocate flexibility in defining terms in case we get new information later. Trimesters takes a hard stance on the definition of a fetus and (below) defines when human life starts. I find it silly a group of 9 old lawyers decides forever when human life starts, and not a medical panel that can review decisions. And what costs do we get for this inflexible policy? Possible or actual unfair and unjust restrictions on liberty. Six months is not a hell of a long time to decide. Things happen between 6 and 9 months that can change the mind of whether the mother wants to keep the baby (finances, living situation, etc.). Then there is always teh hypothetical of someone who is kidnapped for 6 months, raped, impregnanted and let go. Unless there is some benefit from keeping the rigid standard of trimesters there is at least some minor actual harm done by this current policy. At minimum repeal Roe V Wade and change the law so people that could not have had an abortion before 6 months can have one (unless a 6 month old fetus is considered a human baby).

2. Defining life

Here is where the biggest problem lies. When do we consider a fetus to be a human life. Even if the medical community agrees with the Supreme court that it is 6 months, the supreme court is the one making this decision and in the case of new information, the supreme court must repeal its decision. Why not have a medical panel that meets once a year define when human life starts? A medical panel can easily change a decision while the Supreme court cannot. I already explained above the harms form an inflexible system.

3. Definition of Repeal

I tried to be careful and not say overturn roe v wade in the title as overturning it would cause abortion rights to go back to the states. A repeal simply means we can change the decision. Dictionary.com has repeal as
"to revoke or withdraw formally or officially". I did not mean repeal as being a reversal of anything. If so I apologize for any complications and I am only arguing from my definition.

Roe V Wade made abortion rights a federal issue and made abortions available for many that couldn't get one before. Instead of allowing unrestricted abortions for everyone, it defined life and took a hard line approach offering abortion to many but not all. People are still disenfranchised and cannot get an abortion legally. Even if we do consider a fetus to be a human life at 6 months, the supreme court should not be the one deciding this. Repealing Roe V Wade wouldn't neccessarrily take away all abortion rights but it would allow us to give out more rights. It would allow unrestricted abortions after 3 months. I see unfair and unjust restrictions placed on women due to this court case that can easily be fixed w/o any harms (assuming a fetus at 6 months isn't a human life). This is not an all or nothing argument. It is a some or more argument and I think my plan offers more while Roe V. Wade offers only some.
danny445

Con

--As you said, it was illegal in 27 states and greatly regulated or banned in some areas. Roe V. Wade turned that around, for a pro-choice thinker, how is that bad?

--you said "Trimesters were as you said based off of parts of the medical community."

Agreed, it wasn't based off supreme court decisions, therefore the supreme court did not make this up

--This is true, that the medical community can change its stance on something, this is not something that is really debatable. It is agreed that life starts for sure after 6 months. Why? well very simply because premature births that happen in the third trimester can be saved. Not to mention that bones, hair, hands, eyes, genitals, etc, are all developed officially making the fetus human. Then again you did bring up masturbation and circumcision so maybe im wrong??

--"there are viable explanations for putting human life starting at birth, or years after birth"

Years after birth? to be completely honest that is just sick. You think that parents should be able to say "hey this is actually a lot of work, lets kill this "not-human" 3 year old. Really quite disturbing. I honestly have no idea how people don't understand that a 3-T fetus is a human . Is it a surprise for some people? Hey, two people have sex, the woman gets pregnant...." OH !!! I WONDER WHAT ITS GOING TO BE!!!!!"
__There is no shock, it will be human. Because nothing on this planet can become a human other than a fetus within a human, that makes it. . . .human. If it will some day be a human, it is established that if you are to end the fetus' term, you are preventing it from becoming a full human baby. What is it called when you prevent a life from continuing? Mur.. I don't remember.

Sorry, tangent that will probably cost me votes.

to return to the point at hand.

You said: "Trimesters takes a hard stance on the definition of a fetus and (below) defines when human life starts. I find it silly a group of 9 old lawyers decides forever when human life starts, and not a medical panel that can review decisions."

Once again it was not the 9 lawyers who decided. The medical community knows every single detail about what goes on in the womb. They watch it, they film it, they write books about it. There is absolutely no confusion among the medical world, and there can't be any new developments because people having babies has remained the same forever. ( to avoid an evolution argument, we will say modern humans).

"restrictions on liberty."

Once again, everyone has their own right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless if it disables someone else's pursuit. I thought that we had covered this point. In fact we have already covered all of your points thus far, supreme court and the trimester system, liberty. Perhaps it is time for new points.

"six months is not a hell of a long time to decide"
Six months is not a long period of time if you compare it to 5 years, or 10 years. We are not talking about time without limits, we are talking about 6 months out of 9. If you wait 6 months you have waited 67% or more of the total time of pregnancy.

You are right, things can happen that can influence whether or not a woman or a couple wants to "keep" their baby, such as finance etc. Because they can get a job!! isn't that amazing? There is something called personal and parental responsibility. Thats right, when you are expecting to have to feed someone else, generally you go get a job. So I completely and totally agree with you on this point, the conditions of their life can indeed change.

"Then there is always teh hypothetical of someone who is kidnapped for 6 months, raped, impregnanted and let go."

Well that would be just awful, but to be honest after 6 months induced labor can speed up the process. There is a chance the baby will survive. I completely agree with the whole abortion for rape-pregnancies, but there is a limit, after 6 months it should be a no-go. Not because of some 9 old lawyers, but because of the medical developments established. (see above: fingers, eyes, organs, hair, etc). Once again though Roe V. Wade allows states to decide, it is not a restriction, it is an open door.

--You said: "At minimum repeal Roe V Wade and change the law so people that could not have had an abortion before 6 months can have one (unless a 6 month old fetus is considered a human baby)."

"Unless a 6 month old fetus is considered a human baby", I think that it is clear that it is a human baby. Is it a kangaroo baby? no... what is going to happen in three months due to this confusing hard to identify "force" in the womb? A human baby will be born. Not to sound so sarcastic, my apologies. It is indeed the majority opinion in the medical world, as it has been for many years that life starts after 6 months officially.

--You said: "Even if the medical community agrees with the Supreme court that it is 6 months, the supreme court is the one making this decision and in the case of new information, the supreme court must repeal its decision. Why not have a medical panel that meets once a year define when human life starts?"

First off, i agree that its the supreme court making decisions. Because their judicial review (lets not debate the constitutionality of this, it is established that they have judicial review and use it) give them the ability to establish precedents. a medical panel once a year??? That is insane, you want to switch the interpretation and laws on something once a year? The judicial system might be rigid, but that is a good thing. We need our laws to be consistent and for something to be overturned it must be legitimate.

--You defined repeal as : "to revoke or withdraw formally or officially".

revoke means to (according to the same source)
1.take back or withdraw; annul, cancel, or REVERSE; rescind or repeal: to revoke a decree.

We are arguing technicalities here, and perhaps you used the wrong word choice. It is understood that you want to get rid of Roe V. Wade, I will hint back to my original point that the court case established abortion rights, and you want to cancel them. Why? To let the 9 old lawyers talk to doctors and establish the exact same decision every year?

you said: "Roe V Wade... made abortions available for many that couldn't get one before. Instead of allowing unrestricted abortions for everyone, it defined life and took a hard line approach offering abortion to many but not all."

To many but not to all, because at some point everyone agreed that the baby is a human, and an American human if it is to be born on U.S. Soil, therefore you can't strip the Americans rights away.

You said that if we repeal Roe V. Wade that "It would allow unrestricted abortions after 3 months. "

How do you presume this? miraculous unrestricted abortions after 3 months would not just become the law after revoking/repealing/reversing the established laws. You would still have to go about setting laws in motion, meaning it would have to go back to the supreme court im sure after a while. If you don't like the judicial system that is a different debate entirely, but there is a specific checks and balances creation of legislature that actually protects people.

-- You said: "I see unfair and unjust restrictions placed on women due to this court case that can easily be fixed w/o any harms (assuming a fetus at 6 months isn't a human life)."

Once again, it is defined as a human life after 6 months, by the supreme court, sure, but most importantly by doctors and the medical community.

--You said: " This is not an all or nothing argument. It is a some or more argument and I think my plan offers more while Roe V. Wade offers only some."

Your plan consists of revoking the "some". How does that offer more? This debate is on revoking Roe V. Wade, not on whether or not your plan is better. That is a different topic entirely.
Debate Round No. 2
claypigeon

Pro

This debate is not about whether Roe V Wade is good or bad for any group of people. This debate is about whether abortion laws will now be less hindered if Roe V Wade is reversed (not overturned). I argue that unneccesary hinderances are put on women b/c of Roe V Wade. I advocate that Roe V Wade makes abortions more restrictive than is neccesary. I don't care how you all vote but if you make comments please comment based on this and not the inherent goodness of babies and life. That is not what we are debating. For all we care, abortion is murder but Roe V Wade still makes it harder to get than it would w/o.

In regards to the comments though i'll cross apply this. Going around claiming that something is human doesn't make it so. please present evidence so I can take your claim seriously. defining what is human is an age old question and it is NOT common knowledge.

this applies to the debate as the claim is made that it is sick to call at third trimester fetus a nonhuman as it will develop into one. The same reasoning is why people think first term abortions are wrong. It will develop into a human. This is also why I understand how people who are against abortion feel as if they truly think one is commiting murder by this, then they should be trying to stop abortion from happening.

I advocate that instead of letting some collection of 9 old judges determine what is human, we let the medical community determine when Humanity begins. Roe V Wade undermines this as the Court determines when life begins. I wouldn't trust the court to determine whether masturbation or circumcision is bad. That isn't their specialty. Trust the specialists to know when humanity begins. The argument was made that the medical commnity originally decided when life began. Even if this is so, it is bad for 9 old judges to now decide when humanity begins. The medical community could change its views while the court can't. The court is telling us, based on doctor's viewpoints, that humanity begins after 6 months but this could change. The definition of what makes us human changes. Heck, the language of Roe V Wade claims this as regulation is based on when the fetus is viable w/ medical care. As medical care changes so does the time we can regulate abortions. The medical community and courts are not currently in synch. This is because the court, and not doctors, has absolute determination on when a humanity begins.

Repealing Roe V Wade doesn;t mean abortion is now illegal. It would still be legal as there is no law against it. I'm advocating repeal one law and make it more liberal. That is my plan. This is a some or more argument. We don't get rid of all abortion by repealing RVW. We get more abortion by making the text more liberal. Your definition does state a reversal in the meaning but its "or reverse" not and or neccesarily reverse. Repeal, for this debate, means to withdraw.

I apologize that this closing argument is less structured than the others. I am running short on time and my keyboard got weird (spilled schnapps) so it takes awhile to type. But my simple argument is that we can make abortion laws more liberal by withdrawing/repealing Roe V Wade. We cannot do certain acts with it up there. If we judge the success of the plan based on the most abortions allowed, repealing and changing Roe V Wade lets us have more unrestricted abortions.
danny445

Con

danny445 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
let me be clear

ABORTION IS MURDER - IT SHOULD BE BANNED

Roe should be overturned

Abortion is the MOST heinous thing that is legal in the world - BY FAR- the MURDER OF INNOCENTS - it is the same as the SUICIDE BOMBER

and anyone who has even had one knows what I am saying
Posted by mjg283 8 years ago
mjg283
Some of the factual assumptions in this debate are just wrong. The Supreme Court doesn't use the trimester approach anymore. That was abandoned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Now, the cutoff point is VIABILITY.

In addition, in Roe, the SC did NOT purport to define when life begins. In fact, it specifically wrote it was not doing that. What it did was determine when the state's interest in protecting POTENTIAL life overrode the mother's privacy interest.
Posted by claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
my argument was that a child is not necesarily HUMAN after the second trimester. I know children are born after 9 months on average. But is it HUMAN. Does it deserve RIGHTS. Thats what my argument is about.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Claypigeon,

You need proof that children are born DURING the third trimester and survive? Are you serious?

http://www.pregnancy.org...
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
typo..sorry

was actually 23 weeks.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
One of my Soldiers just had twins at 24 weeks into the pregnancy, over a month BELOW 6 months. One of them died in two days but the other one is fully healthy.

Think about it. That IS a human life, well below the time period you are advocating that women should have a choice to terminate the pregnancy. Seeing this poor father cry at the memorial for a life that was only on this earth two days was truly sad and only helped to enforce my disgust at the pro-choice community.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jsonn5 8 years ago
jsonn5
claypigeondanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
claypigeondanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by verbivore 8 years ago
verbivore
claypigeondanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
claypigeondanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
claypigeondanny445Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30