That all forms of abortion should be legal

Chasm

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. My citations for each round can be found in the comments section. The proposition I will put forward for this debate is that up until the 24^th week of her pregnancy a woman should be allowed to request an abortion, which is to be performed in a well-regulated, medical environment by suitable professionals at the earliest opportunity. We will not make doctors perform abortions if they have any moral objections (in the way that Catholic doctors may already opt-out). After 24 weeks abortion will only be allowed in the exceedingly rare cases where there is an extremely high risk to a woman’s health, this must be confirmed by two independent doctors beforehand. While I do not have all the medical knowledge to argue further, presume the proposition stands for the safest and easiest procedure a woman can undergo at any point.

After defining the proposition, I will go on to make one argument in favour this round. My central argument is that it is vitally important for women’s equality and dignity in society that they should be allowed access to abortions. This shall take on two parts: the social pressure to have and care for children, and the economic effect of reducing abortion access.

It is a sad, but the undeniable, fact that it is still the case across the developed world that women are expected to do the majority of raising children and housework (chores made far harder by the addition of children). Studies have discovered that women do approximately 16 hours of household chores per week, compared to 6 for men.^[1] It is the expectation that a mother looks after her child, while a father caring for his children is presumed to be an exception.^[2] Within a typical household a woman spent 1-hour providing childcare, men spend 26 minutes.^[3] Within this context then it is highly understandable that a woman wishing to focus on her career would not want children, at least, not immediately.

However, should she become pregnant accidentally, she would be the one expected to care constantly for that child without abortions. She would have to go through all nine long months of pregnancy. Without the possibility of a secret abortion, everybody would know she was pregnant. She might put the child up for adoption, but the social pressure against this is so great. Children in care generally do worse, in terms of education and mental health^[4], than children not in care. People may criticise the mother for giving her child a less good life than if she had kept him. If women are not given access to secret abortions, they are societally pressured into becoming mothers, limiting their professional careers. This entrenches the stereotype that women are home-makers, men are workers. This stereotype is perhaps the most damaging of our modern times, limiting abortion access only makes the oppression of women and girls stronger.

Even if we could remove that pressure to be a mother, that a woman could just have her child then give it straight to adoption without judgement, the impacts of forcing a woman to go through pregnancy are terrible. Even excluding the barbarism of enforcing that suffering on women, she would be severely debilitated for months. She would be unable to work properly, or even go out as she might previously. We would be putting women 9 months behind their male peers, when they need to make up distance in their careers already. We would do more damage to the gender inequality I have outlined above.

If done quickly, abortions can be relatively painless and secret. Without them, we cannot hope for female equality. To end the evil of sexism in our society we must allow access to abortions.

Bugsy460

Thank you for accepting the debate. I would like to start by saying that, in a limited character debate, sources need to be in the speech. Judges shouldn't have to go in the comments to judge the debate. Also, he tries to limit what he supports within the debate, but this is not the characteristic of the debate. The topic is "That all forms of abortion should be legal", not "Abortions that are performed before 24 weeks should be legal". This is a clear distinction, for female safety and the preservation of life. All should be defined as "every". ¹ Forms should be defined as "established method of expression or proceeding:procedure according to rule or rote". ² This means he has to defend late-term abortion, and unsafe abortions, as legal options.

I will go over my case, then refute my opponents case.

My Case

1. Abortion is a tool of the patriarchy. 73.8% of woman are, in some way, pressured to seek an abortion. 58.3% receive an abortion to make others happy, while 30% perform the procedure to not lose their partner. ³ This shows that women are pressured into medical procedures they don't want to perform by society. While women being denied an abortion is awful, the status quo bullies woman into terminating the pregnancy. This is socially worse for women, because it gives the illusion of choice, and then uses social pressure for them to have to terminate the pregnancy. Use my opponents sources that men don't want to step up as fathers, and take it to the next logical step, they pressure their partner to have an unwanted abortion. This "option" is horrible for women, and must be stopped so the patriarchy can truly stop controlling women's bodies.

2. The potential of life should be equivalent to life itself. Brain function happens at week 5-6. ⁴ A heartbeat happens at 6-7 weeks. ⁵ These are usual symbols of when a pregnancy becomes a life, rather than a clump of cells.18% of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion. ⁶ All of these could have possibly been a life. The crux of the of the fetus debate is "When is it a life?" But this is an oversimplification of the true issue. The problem is that advocates of abortion at any point do not value the potential of life. Many aborted fetuses would have gone on to become living people with thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Millions of people will never get to live their life because they weren't valued as a life.

3. Abortion is used as a systematic tool of oppression on the disabled. The original advocates of abortion were advocating for its use in eugenics. ⁷ This is not only historical, but is being actualized in nations like Iceland. Iceland is "curing" down syndrome by genociding them before birth, utilizing abortion as the tool. ⁸ Societally, abortion is being used to purge disabled populations. This process cannot be allowed to proceed.

Opponents Case

1. The societal pressure on woman can all be used to help support my point that society pressures women into abortions.

2. He says the adoption system is awful, and his solution, instead of regulation, better funding, and accountability in the process, is the death of children who would need this service. That can't stand in today's debate.

Summary

Abortion is a tool of the patriarchy that ends the potential of life and is used for genocide. Do not allow its continuance.

Sources

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all

2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/form

3. https://www.pop.org/many-american-women-felt-pressured-abortions-study-finds/

4. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html

5. https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/when-can-you-hear-babys-heartbeat

6. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

7. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/abortion-and-eugenics

8. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201801/iceland-cures-down-syndrome-should-america-do-the-same