Induced Abortions should be controlled

Thank you to my opponent for accepting, let's get right to it.

Abortion is a topic that plagues mankind. Is it right in certain instances? I think you will find that in most cases it is not and therefore should be controlled. Each year around 73 million abortions are induced in the world. 6 out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies and  3 out of 10 of all pregnancies end in abortion. 

1.  Abortion is morally wrong. 

When does life actually begin? For many such as myself it begins at conception when you and a partner decide to become one and, low and behold, the miracle of life is produced. If the two parties didn't expect this to happen I argue that they wouldn't engage in a sexual encounter mainly or that they would both use protection. A condom and the pill used together bring a 98-99 percent success. A majority of woman who had an abortion, 54% CLAIM that they essentially used abortion as a form of birth control.

               The fact that makes this morally wrong is the taking away of life and potential. A fetus is a living thing. " By the end of the third month of pregnancy, your baby is fully formed. Your baby has arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes and can open and close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are forming. Your baby's reproductive organs also develop, but the baby's gender is difficult to distinguish on ultrasound."https://www.webmd.com/baby/1to3-months  this is at 3 months. There are abortions being preformed up to 5 months and onward! I argue that there should be restrictions on the timeframe when abortions can be performed as well because most would agree its murder to abort at 9 months. 

             Biblically, abortion is murder and it is written "Thou shall not kill"  also in Psalm 139:1-3 it shows that God helped create us from the womb and Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Isaiah 49:1 show that God knows us from the moment of conception and has a plan for us. Multiple times it is written how God hates and condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Proverbs 6:16-19, Jeremiah 22:17, Psalm 106:37-40, 2 Kings 21:6 and 16

       Therefore it is easy to see why biblically, and even if you're not a bible thumper how immoral and wrong uncontrolled abortions are especially when there are other morally acceptable options such as adoption or abstinence. 

2.  Abortion Costs. 

6.9 trillion dollars in the united states alone each year. Between the procedure itself and follow ups and medical complications. Not to mention the capital lost from each abortion you have a potential doctor, potential trade worker  someone to benefit the country and make a difference in the world. Currently the birth rate is below the replacement rate which could be changed with a control on abortions. 

3. Abortion causes Psychological and Bodily harm

      It is not surprising that such a procedure would cause stress and anxiety. In a study done of post-abortion patients  "researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor." (1) Also,  When compared with women without an abortion history, women with a prior abortion experienced a 61% increased risk of mood disorders. Abortion was linked with a 61% increased risk of social phobia, and increased the risk of suicidal thoughts by 59%. Another study shown that those who undergo abortions are more likely to go through risk taking behaviors that can lead to premature death. These are big numbers with big issues that shouldn't be ignored. Another thing that isn't talked about enough is the effect on the fathers. They too go through similar psychological factors although currently men have no say which makes them feel even more repressed helplessness and grief. As a man who was with my ex on the day of her abortion at 2 and a half months i can say with experience that it causes psychological harm.  

     Despite how safe abortions are being depicted, many studies have been done on the effects of abortions. The highest rate of complications is 30.5%. That is a study on women averaging 10 years after their abortions.  This rate included both immediate and delayed complications ranging from mild to severe. Complications include damage to the womb or cervix, excessive bleeding, incomplete abortion that will require an additional surgical abortion, infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes, scarring of the inside of the uterus, sepsis or septic shock, uterine perforation. Another study found that within 6 weeks of there abortion, 5.2% of women were admitted into ER treatment following a medication abortion, 1.3% following a first-trimester surgical abortion, and 1.5% following a late term surgical abortions.  another complication that arises is abortion lessens the chance of having  a healthy child in the future, A 2013 study found that women who have had abortions are more than twice as likely to have a very early preterm child, which gives the child a way lower chance of living to adulthood. the children that do survive are more susceptible to serious disabilities, including cerebral palsy, intellectual impairment, psychological development disorders and autism. 

In conclusion, I believe that for moral and ethical reasons, for a better country, and for our own health, abortions should be better controlled not used as a form of birth control or a thing you can use indefinitely. I turn it over to con.

  

Sources in order 

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion#:~:text=Around%2073%20million%20induced%20abortions,published%20by%20WHO%20in%202020.

1  Ashton, The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).

Hello everyone. I thank the instigator for instigating this issue: the one I always want to make my voice  heard. It is a beautiful opportunity for me.

INTRODUCTION:

The resolution of the debate is "Induced abortions should be controlled." By that, as seen from the debate description, PRO means that "abortions should have tighter laws and regulations and not be used as a form of birth control." I oppose his contention. It is OK for me to confront him in 2 different ways:

I am going to go with the 2nd way: My position is that no abortion should be restricted in anyway by someone other than the bearer (e.g. mother) and his partner. My position is that only biological mother and her partner shall have voice to decide the fate of the fetus. Thus, when I demonstratemy case, it will naturally follow that induced abortions should also be not restricted or controlled in anyway other than the fetus bearer and her partner. However, this debate is not about abortions in general. Thus, PRO does not need to argue against abortion in general but arguing about induced abortions only is sufficient.

ABORTION, MORALITY AND REASON:

The main argument for abortion is that it is the woman who shall decide it: the woman will choose to maintain assisting the fetus that is inside her or not to assist. It is her body, not public body, not common or mutual body of the society. Thus, it can not be decided by nation-wide referendum. 

PRO argued that abortion is morally wrong. I protest: not at all. I paraphrase PRO's 2 aspects for this as such:

1. "Life begins at conception."

2. "Unwanted pregnancy could have been prevented."

By this, we see that he not only does not understand how law works but he does not understand the issue as well. PRO does not understand how law works and should work: Human rights belong to humans that are already born, not yet-to-be born. In law, It is called Natural Personhood. [1]. Natural Personhood as acquired upon birth, not before and lost upon death.[2] It is a basic common knowledge in law. Both by law and by logic, fetus does not have human rights.

 It is not matter of when life begins but matter of if woman is a slave of a fetus: women are not slaves that have to serve others so that others can survive. Simply put, as long as women are not considered slaves, there can be no argument against abortion. Thus, I see no need to address the disputation on whether a fetus is life or not. Even if we assume that fetus is life or even a human, it has no rights, let alone over-lapping and suppressing rights of another human, a woman that bears it.

Fetus being a life or not is irrevelevant: a parasite is a life but when they are burden to a human's body, we simply kick them out. Does PRO argue that parasites should be protected under the law because they are "life"? As thus, being life does not necessitate a woman to be their slave. Do we force women to maintain parasites in their bodies?

There was 3rd aspect by PRO: biblical. At the end, he indirectly acknowledges that bible is not a binding authority at least for both sides:

Morally speaking, ejaculating sperm into a clothet is no different than abortion: both carry potential to eventually become a human, a natural person protected by the laws. Carrying potential does not make it immoral. In contrast, many animals like cats and dogs are protected by law under sections like "animal rights" or "non-human rights" yet parasites are not procted despite being life. Thus, it entails that fetus having potential for life or humanhood does not entail any kind of moral wrongness.

ABORTION AND ECONOMY:

PRO brings up economic costs of abortion but he does not elaborate his point. Does PRO argue that "Abortion should be partially restricted because it has tremendous cost." - I see it as non-sequitor if it is what he means: video gaming, football (soccer) etc all have expenses on economy. Does that mean all of them should be banned/controlled? As long as the consumer pays the costs, financial cost alone is not a valid reason to ban something. If what he means is abortions should not be paid by taxes/government spending, I agree with that: none of the medical operations should be paid by taxes. I support free market economy even at health sectors.

PRO raises another aspect in this section: to raise birthrates. But it is reductio ad absurdum case: a woman is not obligated to give birth, to raise birthrates.Some people, especially catholic monks, do not reproduce for religious reasons, should we force them to reproduce so that birth rates go up? Do we force them to reproduce? Does PRO argue those catholic priests should be forced to reproduce? If not, why women? Some abstain from reproducing for philosophical reasons, which we call anti-natalism.[3] Do we force antinatalists to reproduce? Why women, then?

PRO argues that abortion yields both psychological and physiological harms. Then, he argues that is the reason induced abortions should be controlled. Again, this aspect is also reductio ad absurdum and cherry picking: There are dozens of studies highlighting how cheering for a football/soccer club yielding harm[4] as well as physically permanents damages, which we call hooliganism[5].  Cited study emphasizes that "Hardcore football fans experience intense levels of physical stress during matches." Now, by PRO's reasoning, we would have to ban cheering for football clubs, ban football because it yields stress. Reality does not work in the way PRO tries to manipulate us when it comes to abortion. Do we ban football because it brings not only psychological harm but hooliganism as well? But then why would the same non-sequitor have to be accepted valid when it comes to women while it is not working for men?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe I have successfully addressed PRO's case, demonstrated that they are invalid, unrelated or a misunderstanding. I not only argued against restricting induced abortions but abortions in general, which includes induced ones as well.  I look forward to hear more.

REFERENCES:

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person 

2. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/IECO/COM-040201.xml 

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism 

4. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-01-24-hardcore-football-fans-experience-intense-levels-physical-stress-during-matches#:~:text=Hardcore%20football%20fans%20experience%20intense,during%20matches%20%7C%20University%20of%20Oxford 

5. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hooliganism#:~:text=the%20behaviour%20of%20a%20violent,football%2Fsoccer%20hooliganism