DWYP 2 Round 1 blazedaces Vs TLink_King: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life

[blazedaces]

The affirmative's opening statement:

The pro-choice vs. pro-life debate tends to boil down to whether or not one believes abortion should be banned, that is, made illegal. Most pro-life proponents argue that the sanctity of life may not be violated, that the life of the fetus (who cannot defend himself), must be respected at all costs. Most pro-choice proponents argue that the choice of, that being the freedom to choose, whether or not to have a child is not dismissible under any circumstances. I will show that ultimately these arguments are irrelevant and that the proper ethical response lies in a utilitarian evaluation of all consequences of making abortion legal/illegal.

Note that I am purposefully ignoring any religious claims made by any side considering the following two reasons: one, different religions make different claims, and two, that in many countries there is a separation of church and state, as in the United States (6).

I will begin by defining some terms (all definitions are taken from The Merriam Webster Dictionary (1)):
-abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
-ethics: The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
-life:
1. The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
2. The period from birth to death
-utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

The argument proposed by pro-life advocates I will call the “sanctity of life argument”. The question “when does life actually begin?” arises. Unfortunately, life is not so strictly defined. I have provided two definitions to highlight the fundamental problem pro-life advocates completely ignore. Does life begin as soon as the sperm and egg combine (or even prior)? Or does life begin after the child can react to sound and produce brain pattern readings showing signs of cognition? The answer is not obvious and may never be answered.

The argument proposed by most pro-choice advocates, however, does not have any vague unanswerable questions to deal with, and I will call it the “freedom of choice argument”: Ethically, an individual (in this case the mother at least) has the right to choose whether not to have a baby (2a).

Now I will begin to bring up issues that can’t be ignored, yet are absolutely ignored by these two common arguments.

There is often no choice at all:

On the other hand, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate tends to overlook the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not, in fact, do so entirely by choice. Circumstances put them in a position where abortion is the least self-destructive option available to them.

According to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute (3), 68% of women who have abortions in the United States say that they cannot afford to have children and 27% cite this as their primary reason for terminating the pregnancy. 20% cite health reasons. 38% are young women either hiding pregnancies from their parents, or ordered by their parents to terminate their pregnancies.

(4)

Furthermore, there are plenty of genetically fatal diseases (I believe this is included in those previous statistics) that can be found prior to birth (5). Why should a mother wait to see her child die, in an often not painless death, at a slightly prolonged time, to avoid aborting the child? The “sanctity of life argument” becomes meaningless since the child’s life will soon end regardless of our actions.

The crux of my argument (that has very little to do with the two arguments proposed by most proponents) lies in evaluating, in a utilitarian manner (2b), the consequences of legalizing abortion.

First I will point out that in a paper entitled The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (7) (and briefly explained in a book titled Freakonomics) it was shown that the legalization of abortion has resulted in reduced crime rates (and significantly reduced murder rates, nonexclusively of course). It was concluded by comparing the drop in crime in states which had legalized abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade (8), which legalized abortion nation-wide, versus those who did not. Furthermore this theory held up when comparing the same statistics of other countries (like Canada and Australia).

Secondly, I will point out that unwanted children, in an ideal situation where we ignore the idea of baby’s being left in dumpsters, are put up for adoption. The adoption system, unfortunately, is vastly overloaded even with abortion being legal in the United States (9)(10). There are simply too many children needing foster care and not enough parents wanting them. One could argue that an overloaded adoption system results in many children with a lower quality lifestyle than could be afforded to them had they been with a parent or set of parents..

In conclusion, considering that the legalization of abortion resulted in lower crime and murder rates, and considering that the legalization of abortion results in fewer children living a lower quality lifestyle, one can conclude that overall quality and quantity of life is increased by legalizing abortion.

References:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com
(2) http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/moral.htm
a. The section titled “The Ethics of Respect for Persons”
b. The section titled “Utilitarianism”
(3) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
(4) http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/Pro-Life-vs-Pro-Choice.htm
a. The section titled “No Choice”
(5) http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Genetic_Disorders/desc.html
a. Search for the word fatal
(6) http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
(7) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508
a. Unfortunately, to look at this paper you must register for free first
(8) http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
(9) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
(10) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2005.htm

 

[blazedaces]

One more note I forgot to mention: In the quoted section I referenced the study with a number (3) and put the link on the bottom, but in the actual quote on the website that study is linked. I did this to be consistent.

Also, as I just noticed The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime should be The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, but that should be obvious enough...

Good luck to my opponent TLink_King.

-blazed

 

[Amide]

And good luck to you too, blazedaces.

First, I would like to make it clear that religion will not be brought up at all. Here in the United States, separation of church and state is vital.

Now, to begin illustrating my side, I'm going to bring up the most controversial method of abortion. Partial abortion, more scientifically named intact dilatation and extraction(1), is performed by dilation of the cervix, or opening it, followed by a footling breach, or backwards birth, and then the fetus leaves the head. Then, they extract the brain. Now, the fetus is dead. If that sounded strange enough, the doctor then pulls both legs out of the fetus, followed by an incision in the skull. The incision is brought out more using scissors. Then a catheter(2), or suction tube, sucks the extracted brain, which causes the skull to collapse. Now, the fetus can pass through the birth canal easily.

The baby (fetus) (3) at the point in which this abortion would take place, 36 weeks, can eat some substances, weighs almost as much as a new born baby, and is almost fully developed.

Basically, the only difference between a full grown fetus and a new born baby is that the new born baby has been born. So while the fetus technically might not be alive, there's little difference between the two. So why is it OK to have an abortion on an unborn baby, but to kill a baby slightly more developed is downright inhumane? The process isn't very pretty either, as mentioned above.

On your premise that some people do it primarily because they couldn't afford having a baby, adoption is a great alternative. In fact, 90%(4) of adoptions are with children under 5, and babies get adopted very often. And those people, and even those not adopted, are usually very happy to be alive.

Sources:
1. The American Medical Association
2. Worldwide Catheterization Lab Manufacturer
3. Baby Center
4. The EBD Adoption Institute

 

[blazedaces]

Firstly, the grotesque description of the procedure doesn’t hold sway in this debate. This is surgery. It’s not going to be pretty. The only thing we need to discuss is the outcome. And the outcome as a result of this procedure is nearly insignificant.

Unfortunately, it’s very hard to find any real numbers on D&X procedures; reason being that most data doesn’t break down the procedures enough to report on specific D&X procedures. The closest thing is reports on procedures that fall under the category of “other”. The average percentage of procedures falling under this category between the years 1973-2004 is approximately 2.47% (1). Remember this is all procedures falling under the category of “other”, which means the actual percentage of D&X procedures is even smaller! Furthermore, based on your AMA source (2):

According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

we can see that doctors will avoid using the D&X procedure at almost all costs. To expand upon that even further, following a Supreme Court ruling to lump all “partial-birth” procedures together and ban them entirely in 2007, this was one response:

UPDATE IV: The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are [highlight]widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.[/highlight]

In conclusion, while the D&X procedure results in the loss of a 36-week-old child, the number of times this procedure is undertaken is so infrequent as to be insignificant. This would also still be ignoring cases in which the baby might be found to have a genetically fatal disease, which I already pointed out above. The benefits clearly outweigh the costs.

Quickly I’m going to dismiss your point made about adoption because your source is clearly speaking about international adoptions, as in adoptions made by US Citizens seeking an adopted child from another country, and not all adoptions made in the US or in the world. It also doesn’t report anything about how “happy” these children live their lives. I’ve also been completely ignoring death to a child as a result of being placed in a less-than-acceptable foster care home because the percentage of those cases is 0% (about 500 children in 2006) (4). My point still stands that plenty of children would end up living without parents due to an already overcrowded adoption system and would live a lifestyle of lesser quality, on average.

I’ll reiterate my earlier point: in ethically evaluating the consequences of legalizing abortion, overall quality and quantity of life is increased.
References:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm
a. Look at Table 1 (you have to scroll down a bit)
(2) http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new...t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=2&
(3) http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/18/supreme-partial-birth/
(4) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm
a. Search for the word “death”

 

[blazedaces]

I thought of a clear way to illustrate my point by comparing the legalization of abortion to the legalization of the adoption system/procedure:

As I pointed about <1% of children going through the system end up dead and let's even assume for the benefit of the doubt, as you said TLink, that nearly all children going through the system who stay alive live "happy" lives.

Should we abolish or outlaw the entire adoption system because <1% of children as a result of this procedure end up dying? Or should we keep it legalized since it helps so many people lead happier lives?

In the same manner, as I pointed out, <2% (You could reasonable say it's <1%, but we have no data to verify that completely) of children (let's assume for the benefit of the doubt that 36-week-old-fetus's are in fact the same as children) die as a result of legalized abortion.

So should we outlaw abortion because <2% of as a result of this procedure end up dying? Or should we keep it legalized since it helps so many people lead happier lives?

To redundantly reiterate my conclusion: in ethically evaluating the consequences of legalizing abortion, overall quality and quantity of life is increased.

-blazed

 

[Amide]

Firstly, the grotesque description of the procedure doesn’t hold sway in this debate. This is surgery. It’s not going to be pretty. The only thing we need to discuss is the outcome. And the outcome as a result of this procedure is nearly insignificant.

Surgery is never pretty, but when it's surgery positive for one's health, the process doesn't matter, the outcome does. But when you're trying to end someone's life, you want to do so in the most ethical manner possible, right? If this was the method for capital punishment, would you support it?

Quickly I’m going to dismiss your point made about adoption because your source is clearly speaking about international adoptions, as in adoptions made by US Citizens seeking an adopted child from another country, and not all adoptions made in the US or in the world. It also doesn’t report anything about how “happy” these children live their lives. I’ve also been completely ignoring death to a child as a result of being placed in a less-than-acceptable foster care home because the percentage of those cases is 0% (about 500 children in 2006) (4). My point still stands that plenty of children would end up living without parents due to an already overcrowded adoption system and would live a lifestyle of lesser quality, on average.

I'm sorry, I forgot to post another link. Adopted children are just as happy as other children(1+2). But seriously, this issue is irrelevant to the abortion debate, so let's try to stay off this if we can.



On intact D&X, in perspective with other abortions, it isn't very common(3). But I would hardly call 2,232 instances in the United States, 2000 alone, "insignificant." I think it's great when people use other forms of abortion, but are there any safety disadvantages when you simply don't have the abortion? (Not including specific cases in which it would be harmful to have the baby)


Sources:
1. Family Education
2. The New York Times
3. Guttmacher Institute

 

[blazedaces]

Surgery is never pretty, but when it's surgery positive for one's health, the process doesn't matter, the outcome does. But when you're trying to end someone's life, you want to do so in the most ethical manner possible, right? If this was the method for capital punishment, would you support it?

Not if you base your ethics on utilitarianism (1). In capital punishment we're talking about a full grown adult who can feel happiness and sadness and if he knows he's going to die in a painless and more ethical manner he won't feel as depressed than if he's being hung in front of a crowd of hating people. A baby on the other hand, doesn't know the difference and can't tell any which way. The only person who directly feels hurt by the situation is the mother of the baby. In that case, the safest surgery recommended by a doctor is the best route to take, whether it be her choice or not (which we already covered it often is not her choice at all).

The only thing that matters is the outcome.

I'm sorry, I forgot to post another link. Adopted children are just as happy as other children(1+2). But seriously, this issue is irrelevant to the abortion debate, so let's try to stay off this if we can.

Unfortunately, I believe this topic is relevant to this debate since we're assuming if children are not aborted they can be put into the adoptions system (of course you're completely ignoring my point about genetically fatal diseases).

Both your sources talk about children already adopted. I'll admit that your sources clearly show children who are placed into adopted homes live happy lives, but that's all.

This source, on the other hand, suggests that children placed into foster care are often much worse off than in their own families (2).

Children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. Those who:

Were arrested at least once:
• Stayed with family: 14%
• Went to foster care: 44%

Became teen mothers:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 56%

Held a job at least 3 months:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 20%

Source: Study by Joseph Doyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(2)

So, as I showed earlier, because the adoption system is overcrowded, only the kids who actually get adopted (according to your source) lead happier, more successful lives, but those who continue waiting to be adopted live lifestyles of a lower quality, on average.

If abortion were illegal, many, many more children would require adoptions and even more would live lives "of a lesser quality".

On intact D&X, in perspective with other abortions, it isn't very common(3). But I would hardly call 2,232 instances in the United States, 2000 alone, "insignificant." I think it's great when people use other forms of abortion, but are there any safety disadvantages when you simply don't have the abortion? (Not including specific cases in which it would be harmful to have the baby)

Can I first ask, "harmful to who?" Because, there's also the harm of the baby to consider if he/she is born (from genetic diseases for example).

On another note, regardless of the number of 2,232 instances your source says that the number of dilation and extraction occurrences was still a minute 0.17%! So, I'm going to repeat my above question for you:

Would you abolish a system which helped people in 99.83% of cases?

And lastly, you ask "are there any safety disadvantages when you simply don't have the abortion?" Are you completely forgetting all my points in my opening statement about the reduction of crime and murder rates due to legalized abortion (3) and the point mentioned above about the adoption system?

Legalizing abortion results in more advantages than disadvantages from an ethical point of view. This would lead one to conclude that abortion should be legalized.

References:
(1) http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/moral.htm
a. The section titled “Utilitarianism”
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm
(3) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508
a. Unfortunately, to look at this paper you must register for free first

 

[Amide]

Not if you base your ethics on utilitarianism (1). In capital punishment we're talking about a full grown adult who can feel happiness and sadness and if he knows he's going to die in a painless and more ethical manner he won't feel as depressed than if he's being hung in front of a crowd of hating people. A baby on the other hand, doesn't know the difference and can't tell any which way. The only person who directly feels hurt by the situation is the mother of the baby. In that case, the safest surgery recommended by a doctor is the best route to take, whether it be her choice or not (which we already covered it often is not her choice at all).

You're right about the full grown adult feeling it more, but you can't just say that a baby doesn't feel anything, so it doesn't matter how we handle him/her. It's not only about the feeling, it's about the process. What if you anesthetized an adult when they were sleeping, but killed them slowly in unethical ways? Painless, (like an abortion) but ethics still needs to be paid attention to. However, there are exceptions. If the abortion is needed for medical reasons, then having the abortion is the ethical thing to do.

On utilitarianism, I agree that there are times when you will have to pick between two imperfect choices. But doesn't this verge a little bit too much on 'make your own choices?'(1)

"According to preference utilitarianism, those conditions are promoted that allow each individual within society to pursue happiness as he or she defines it."

If you live on that mind set, outlawing practices (not necessarily abortion) would never be right, because it depends on who it's referring to decide what is right.

By the way, I will respond to the rest of your post later. I'm supposed to be in bed now, and I need sleep today.

Sources:

1. Your ethics source

 

[blazedaces]

You're right about the full grown adult feeling it more, but you can't just say that a baby doesn't feel anything, so it doesn't matter how we handle him/her. It's not only about the feeling, it's about the process. What if you anesthetized an adult when they were sleeping, but killed them slowly in unethical ways? Painless, (like an abortion) but ethics still needs to be paid attention to. However, there are exceptions. If the abortion is needed for medical reasons, then having the abortion is the ethical thing to do.

The child and adult are only different via the fact that the child's death will more likely have less of an impact on the world (only to the mother) whereas the death of an adult may have an impact on many, many more people. The impact it produces is influenced by the how ethical he is killed. Still, that impact is the only thing that matters in from a utilitarian point of view.

This is literally a way to decide the most ethical course of action.

On utilitarianism, I agree that there are times when you will have to pick between two imperfect choices. But doesn't this verge a little bit too much on 'make your own choices?'(1)

"According to preference utilitarianism, those conditions are promoted that allow each individual within society to pursue happiness as he or she defines it."

If you live on that mind set, outlawing practices (not necessarily abortion) would never be right, because it depends on who it's referring to decide what is right.

You quoted the source incompletely. This is the full quote:

One of the solutions that is most widely accepted by utilitarians is called preference utilitarianism. According to preference utilitarianism, those conditions are promoted that allow each individual within society to pursue happiness as he or she defines it. Each individual may use his or her own preferences as a guide to action. [highlight]But of course each person must also promote those conditions that allow others to pursue their own preferences. So, from the utilitarian perspective, each person has a double obligation: to maximize his own well-being, however this is defined, but only insofar as this is compatible with promoting those conditions that enable others to maximize their own well-being, however they define it. Only in this way will the utilitarian ideal be realized.[/highlight]

(1)
All this is saying is that happiness is subjective. The rest stays exactly the same.

Every part of ethics comes down to some subjectivity. This is inevitable. But we as a society must strive to use the proper ethical theories in the proper time and place in order to secure a most ethical position.

And now, the affirmative will make it's closing remarks:

The question of whether or not to legalize abortion is an ethical one and needs to be supported by an ethical theory. Utilitarianism is such a theory which strives to make the choice which leads to the most happiness for the most people. If a choice absolutely has to be made, we should take the choice which helps the most people.

While I admit cases of partial-abortion and especially cases of D&X, as my opponent pointed out, can result in negative consequences such as killing a baby's life, this is but a small sacrifice to be made for the millions upon millions of positive that comes out of legalized abortion. Not to mention that often enough, abortion in general is not the choice a woman wants to make in the first place, but one she is forced to make.

Because legalizing abortion has reduced crime and murder rates (2), and resulted in a less overcrowded adoption system quality and quantity of life have increased. For this reason, legalizing abortion is the most ethical course of action we can take as a society.

References:
(1) http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/moral.htm
(2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=174508
a. Unfortunately, to look at this paper you must register for free first


Thank you, TLink_King. That was an incredibly enjoyable debate.
-blazed

 

[Amide]

You're right, there would be a difference in impact. But, say that an adult with no friends, or job, was killed. There would be no impact on other people's lives. Would that be fine? Would it be any worse to kill someone that would leave a greater impact on other people? It's hard to say that it's more justified to kill a baby because of "low impact."

Now for my closing statement:

A woman shouldn't feel punished if they are unwillingly pregnant. But the baby shouldn't be punished for that either. The thing is, the baby is slightly less developed than a born baby. But does that mean it's fine to kill him? There's little difference. While you can argue crime rates can go down, I describe murder has a very high level crime. And abortion is just that, taking an unborn child's life.




The sources I used were those of the first post. And I'm glad of doing this debate too, blazed. If you're reading this and you have won, congratulations. I'll be rooting for you, since we shared stances on virtually every issue.

 

[AltF4]

Blazed

Well, you sure did go to the extreme with providing information on exactly what it was that you were debating! Even describing Utilitarianism. You certainly went for the fairly standard approach, and it worked out well. You went for as rational and logical of an approach as you could. Use of sources was also good in this debate. There are a lot of numbers and studies in this topic, so it was necessary.

A

TLink_King

Especially at first, your arguments were based too much off of a shock value than real substance. Blazed defined an ethical model for you, and I expected you to either try to prove why Abortion would be wrong within that model, or try to substitute in another one, but you didn't. Again, though, use of sources was very good, and the overall quality was quite high.

B+

 

[Deleted member]

Overview:

A high quality debate from both sides. Nice job, guys.

Blazed:

Your definitions, while seemingly unnecessary, definitely helped set the stage to how you saw the terms. It made it easier for me to understand your posts, simply because I knew the standards you have set. Your flow and style were pretty textbook, but your slant felt fresh. Utilitarianism, an argument for abortion? I guess if you think about it it is, but I guess I hadn't heard the word used in an abortion context. You did a great job of outlining a very safe pro-choice argument. You sourced excellently.

My verdict: A

TLink_King:

You did very well. I think it was very mature of you to instantly discard any religious implications in your arguments. I'm not sure Alt's comment on your arguments being shock value are entirely fair. Having seen an incredibly graphic documentary, one that goes inside the operation room during an abortion and shows you the process, live - with the bloody aftermath, seeing the head, the eyes, the feet, all of the mutilated body parts that are then dumped into a basin and rinsed for measurement..man, just recalling all of this is really hard. My heart is pounding.

It was truly one of the most awful things I've ever seen in my entire life. I've always been pro-choice, but after seeing those images, which are now burned into my mind..it's so hard to choose now. I'll always argue for people to take their stupid bibles out of women's vaginas, but when you see the true outcome of what this debate is about, it becomes so incredibly difficult to decide. You see that it's not just some faceless blob of pink. It's not a giraffe, it's not a dog, it's a human, a human that is being killed for utilitarian purposes, as Blazed so aptly put it. I just don't think it's fair to call your arguments shock-value.

Which leads me back to some of the more shocking images in “Lake of Fire.” It’s possible that Mr. Kaye opted to show several abortions because he wanted viewers, particularly those sympathetic to a woman’s right to abortion, to understand what stirs some people not just to action, but also to kill doctors. If nothing else, the first abortion in the film (of a 20-week-old fetus, though that information is not in the film) reinforces what an abstraction the term pro-choice really is. Abortion does end the life of something. The fight, of course, is over what that something is — an embryo, a baby, God’s creation, a blob of cells — and who has dominion over it and the fully formed human being carrying that something inside her body.

If you ever see this movie, you will never call it a blob of cells again.

My verdict: A-