tecoyah

Participants:

Korimyr the Rat vs. talloulou

Debate Monitor:

star2589

Topic: Legal/social ramifications of the removal of Roe vs. Wade

Coin Toss: Korimyr the Rat goes first

FallingPianos

Debate Rules:

Competitors shall take turns. If you have posted a reply, you may not post again until your competitor has responded. If you run out of space, you may post again, but the end of the first post must say "(continued...)". If you do not continue your post within 3 hours, you forfeit your right to do so.

Competitors must post at least 12 hours apart. The purpose of this rule is to encourage well thought out posts, and to avoid going on tangents as often happens in fast paced debates.

Editing your posts is allowed, but discouraged. You may edit your posts up to 25 minutes after posting. If you edit your post, you must put a brief explaination of the edit at the bottom of the post. Use the Preview Post feature so that editing is unnecessary.

You must cite your sources. All online sources must be free, and must not require registration. A link and page number (if applicable) is sufficient for an online source. For offline sources, a full MLA or APA citation is required. If you would like to use another citation form, or do not know how to use the forms above, PM me.

All Forum Rules apply.

__________________

FallingPianos

opening post to change; 1 hour warning:

The true debates opened nearly 24 hours ago, and Korimyr the Rat has not yet posted. If he doesnt by 6pm EST (exactly 24 hours after the debates opened) then the opening post will go to Talloulou.

FallingPianos

commentary for this debate is here

Mods: please PM me or post in the commentary before posting anything here.
Everyone Else: have fun.

FallingPianos

Opening post shall now go to talloulou

talloulou

Innumerous legal scholars will readily acknowledge that Roe vs. Wade represents untenable constitutional law. Even adamant believers in “choice” concede Roe vs. Wade constitutes a faulty decision.

Abortion would not become immediately illegal in all states in the absence of Roe vs. Wade. Instead the door would open for discussions that were trumped by the Supreme Court when they asserted that abortion was a constitutional right.

The judiciary when contemplating Roe vs. Wade pronounced that it was nonessential to resolve the question of when human life begins. They inferred instead that protection of the fetus was not a concern until viability. However “viability” today is not the same as it was in 1973.

To this day opposition to Roe vs. Wade is strong and intense yet intelligent discourse is rendered virtually impossible by the assumed “constitutional right” to abortion. It is high time we legally scrutinized our current abortion law. The democratic process ought to be given a chance to dissertate and answer questions that Roe vs. Wade ignored.

Untold numbers of people do not support abortion on demand. Roe vs. Wade is extremely permissive when compared to other nations who have more regulated abortion policies.

If Roe vs. Wade were overturned our society would not presumably turn its back on abortion. Instead our nation would have the opportunity to deliberate and undoubtedly eventually culminate in some type of middle ground. There just aren’t that many people who want to see abortion banned all together but correspondingly there aren’t that many who want to see abortion on demand persevere with such high numbers.

While some suggest that any regulations on abortion are akin to slavery I maintain they are equating sexual liberation with freedom from sexual responsibility and their opinions are as negligible and out of touch with our community as those who believe birth control should be outlawed.

Korimyr the Rat

I think this is the key factor in dealing with this issue, and the one most often overlooked by proponents of overturning the decision.

In 1973, five States had already legalized abortion-on-demand, with fourteen others allowing abortion in cases other than preserving the life of the mother. The general trend nationwide was toward the relaxation of such laws, which had been passed mainly in the 1820s and 1830s and were focused more on risks to the mother's health than protection of the fetus; these laws were often contradictory to English (and thus American) legal tradition which allowed abortion to the point of "quickening".

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not prohibit abortion. It would only allow for the individual States to decide for themselves whether or not to do so-- and fewer States would choose to prohibit abortion now than they did in the early 1970s.

However, this would not be the end of the debate. Along with the focus this issue receives on the Federal level, it would make this issue relevant in State and local politics in every State and would draw even more heated attention. This would in no way reduce the pressure on the Federal level, as recent lobbying for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion amply demonstrates.

Thus, I would argue that the effects of overturning Roe v. Wade would actually be minimal, and would be more concentrated in our political discourse than any practical effect on the lives of either young women or fetuses. The number of abortions would be slightly curtailed as abortion laws would only apply on the State level, allowing women of moderate (or greater) means to simply travel to a more permissive legal climate.

The effects would be greater on poor, unmarried, and underaged women, who lack the means to simply cross the State line-- or several State lines-- in order to receive a legal abortion. They would either be forced to bear unwanted children or to resort to illegal practicioners, creating a greater burden on local welfare and medical programs-- both in the short term as they require those services themselves, and in the long term as their children would be statistically less likely to receive proper education later in life.

Would you say that intelligent discourse in impossible in discussion of gun control or the freedom of the press? Despite the clear and incontrovertible written law concerning these matters, they are still topics of political discussion and are far from universally supported.

The only thing preventing intelligent discourse on this issue is the level of emotion associated with it-- and the provocative tactics favored by protestors on both sides of the issue.

This, I would agree with. Our laws in this matter need to be subjected to legislative scrutiny, and the various laws which govern sexuality, reproduction, and family must be made internally consistent to avoid the bizarre and unjust contradictions they currently create.

I would suggest, however, that in attempting to answer the questions overlooked-- and deliberately so-- in Roe v. Wade, we also examine other questions that are generally overlooked. In particular, in a world with anonymous sperm and egg donation, widespread adoption, birth control and surgical abortion, we need to re-examine the relationship between the act of reproduction and the legal and social responsibilities of parenthood.

The problem with discussion of abortion is that it is typically too limited; it does not address other issues that are intertwined with it and the implications of those. Roe v. Wade does not address those issues at all-- which makes it part of the problem.

Unfortunately, overturning the decision would not allow for the "intelligent discourse" that you are predicting, either, nor would it encourage a sensible approach to resolving the issue. It would only serve to further polarize the debate and obscure the pertinent questions even further.

__________________

talloulou

If Roe vs. Wade were abolished the abortion debate would straightaway emerge more publicly than it is currently and proponents and critics of abortion would have to make their arguments more honestly and aboveboard.

I hold the end result would save the lives of many fetuses and encourage more women to use birth control more responsibly.

One of the principle arguments for abortion states that there is a constitutional inalienable right to privacy which Roe vs. Wade somehow translated into the right to an abortion. Much of the public does not comprehend the feeble fragile reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade.

Certainly if abortion is protected by the constitution on the basis of privacy then why isn’t prostitution or drug use? What exactly does abortion have to do with search and seizure? Once we let the false assertion of a constitutional right to abortion go we are suddenly free to discuss the big elephant in the room.

Abortion takes the life of a living human organism. This organism is a member of the species homo sapiens. Unlike other human tissue, sperm, or an egg the organism in the womb is a new distinct human in its earliest stage of development. It is not part of its mother it merely resides in her until birth.
The real abortion questions deal with the value of that brand new human life and whether or not, if ever, that unique life deserves protection. What other human organisms are denied “personhood”? Every living member of the species homo sapiens is considered by most to be a human being. When does one become a human being?

Democratically these questions are debatable and I assert it is a debate worth having. What is not debatable is the fact that abortion ends the life of a living human. An organism, like you or I, that is a member of the species homo sapiens. Roe vs. Wade is too permissive. If given the chance I believe our society could do better.

I’m admittedly prolife which means I will generally pursue reproductive solutions outside of abortion. However I am not blind to the mother who must carry and nurture the baby in her womb. If genuine abortion dialogue was re-opened in town squares across the nation we would most likely find that many of us agree far more than we disagree.

The majority of this country does not support abortion on demand. However the majority does support abortion in cases where the mother’s health is at risk as well as in cases involving sexual assault. Furthermore many people are comfortable with early term abortions but their comfort level decreases with gestational age. Also, Roe vs. Wade emphasized “viability” as an important stage and placed it at 24 weeks. But clearly viability has changed and babies born even before 24 weeks are currently surviving.

If a poll was taken today and it simply asked are you pro-life or pro-choice I’d estimate that most would claim pro-choice. However I contend that if we steered away from a simple poll and dug deeper we would find that an overwhelming majority of us would fall somewhere in between. If we allowed for considerations of gestational age as well as the mother’s health our society would probably vote to keep abortion albeit with more regulation.
Furthermore I strongly feel many seemingly adamant pro-choicers would let the issue drop despite abortion regulations. Likewise I am convinced that a solid majority of pro-lifers would focus more on other issues if abortion was more regulated and they felt comfortable that our society afforded some level of respect, dignity and consideration to the unborn.

Would everyone pack up their bags and go home? Of course not. There obviously would be pro-lifers that would continue to fight for nothing less than the complete outlaw of abortion as there would be pro-choicers continuing to demand that the government has no business regulating their uterus. However these people would represent the fringes of each side. The majority of people would be content with more regulated abortion and most on both sides would give up the war.

The end result would favor our society since politicians could no longer use abortion to pit one side against the other. The democratic majority would scoff at those who demanded an absolute end to all abortions just as they would scoff at those insistent on legal abortion on demand up till birth.
There is truth in that statement. Unfortunately when it comes to almost any issue it is the poor who are affected first and foremost. .However I honestly believe the states which completely outlawed abortion would be few in number especially over time as we reached a majority moral consensus on the topic.
I think the topic of abortion is emotional. However I do believe Roe vs. Wade inhibits genuine discussions of abortion because it sets up a precedent that the life in the womb is unimportant…constitutionally. People can argue gun control all they want but there is a definite constitutional right to bear arms. There is a constitutional right to free speech. The constitutional right to abortion is not so evident yet the pro-choice side can argue that it is because the Supreme Court declared it so.
I agree all of these questions should be examined. Is there a difference between an embryo that has implanted in the uterus and one that resides in a Petri dish? What if we eventually develop artificial wombs? Will humans brought to term in artificial wombs automatically obtain the rights of personhood? Should we bring humans to term in artificial wombs for the sake of science or only for the sake of mothers who don’t have a working uterus? Is it okay to clone embryos? Should we allow eggs to be taken from a deceased female fetus and fertilize them for the sake of embryonic research? Do fathers become fathers when the mother declares them so or do they have the right to know when they have biologically fathered a child? If society decides a pregnant woman has 12 weeks to decide to keep the baby or abort does the biological father get the same 12 week period to opt out of fatherhood himself? These are questions that should all be open for public democratic debate.

I agree. Roe vs. Wade was a quick sweeping decision that halted the democratic dialogue that is necessary to adequately deal with such a large complex societal subject.

I disagree. In terms of technology Roe vs. Wade is an old decision. I also do not feel the public is quite as polarized as most think. I consistently argue the pro-life side yet I have openly admitted that if a true compromise could be reached I would be happy to argue other things and let this go. The percentage of the population which is truly either pro-life or pro-choice is small. Most fall somewhere in between.

FallingPianos

Effective at 12:47 PM EST wednesday competitors may post 6 hours apart instead of 12 hours apart.

the 12 hour limit seems to be slowing down the debate unnecessarily, and so im reducing it to 6 hours.

Korimyr the Rat

I fail to see how. Other than removing Constitutional considerations from the argument-- which aren't really the basis of most peoples' concerns-- I don't see how striking down Roe v. Wade would change anything except for the possible outcomes of the argument.

It certainly won't make anyone more honest, since the higher the stakes are the more desperate people will become to see their side win. I would expect more provocative demonstrations, more distortion, and more raw emotion, not less.

According to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, there are approximately 1.37 million abortions every year in the United States. This is after steadily declining since abortion reached its peak in the United States in 1990. (cite)

By contrast, there were 586,760 legal abortions in 1972-- when it was only legal in seven states-- and 615,831 in 1973 after it was legalized nationwide. This is only counting legal abortions, of course, but the 1973 figure would also include a large number of abortions which would have occurred illegally the year before.

While the number of legal abortions increased steadily afterwards-- until 1990-- it seems that this was due more to changes in social attitude than the law. Since those changes in social attitude were present before 1973, as shown by several States moving to legalize abortion, and are still present today, it seems highly unlikely that changes in the law today will spark any great change in the number of abortions.

Especially since far fewer than forty-six States would pass laws that would effect more than a very small percentage of abortions in the first place.

However, they do understand the basic concept of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment, which was the basis of the later Planned Parenthood v. Casey-- which prevents the State from restricting liberties without being able to demonstrate a compelling interest. (cite)

The law has held, and most people accept, that the State has no compelling interest in the reproductive choices made by its citizens; the legal protection of abortion is simply an extension of this. Removing the concept of "viability" as necessary to justify the State's interest would allow for far more invasive decisions on the State's part.

I'd clarify this to note that they do not support abortion-on-demand beyond a certain gestational age.

Later decisions, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey as mentioned earlier, have refined Roe's standards of "viability", discarding the trimester model and basing it upon current medical technology.

In the long term, I would agree that you are correct. However, in the short term and the context of what people are calling a "cultural war", abortion would suddenly become a much more important battleground.

How so, when it would also finally allow this debate to show results? We would see a much larger degree of polarization in the wake of this decision, as every attempt to regulate abortion would be seen as an attempt to prohibit it entirely, and every attempt to relax regulations-- which would follow soon after they were passed-- would be seen as an attempt to return to Roe standards.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would make the abortion debate more prominent and far more emotional for a long time to come and it would be decades before any satisfactory solution were reached.

Certainly, but the regulations they did pass would have far more effect on the people least prepared for having children. They are the most likely to be sexually assaulted, and not every regulation will make an exception. They are the most likely to discover their pregnancies late-- and the ones least capable of getting money for the procedure quickly-- and most regulations will include deadlines. They are the ones who are least capable of raising and supporting a child, as well as the ones least capable of providing the prenatal care which is necessary for healthy children, regardless of whether they intend to keep the child or not.

These regulations would not significantly reduce the number of abortions overall, but they would have a dramatic effect on who is capable of procuring them, favoring those who need them least.

I would urge you to spend more time reading gun control arguments, then. If you think the "right to privacy" extrapolated by Roe v. Wade or the "general liberty" protected by Planned Parenthood v. Casey shows twisted legal reasoning, you would be absolutely amazed.

The absence or presence of "Constitutional protection" for a right has very little to do with the intensity of the argument, and only a minor effect on the kinds of arguments used.

I agree with you, but I don't think you're acknowledging that these questions are up for public debate, and as demonstrated by other cases based on Roe v. Wade, a Court decision can be refined without being discarded.

We are capable of publically discussing this issue without overturning Roe v. Wade, and there is nothing in the language of the decision-- or that of other cases based upon it-- that suggests that we cannot reach an acceptable legal compromise despite the required standard.

Roe v. Wade does not prevent laws which prohibit the abortion of viable fetuses-- and the birth of James Elgin Gill, almost twenty years ago, means that "viable" can be as early as twenty weeks. In requiring an exception for "health or life of the mother", it does not require that "health" be defined to include "psychological health" or for "psychological health" to be defined as "giving the mother what she wants".

These are decisions that have been made by legislators, not judges; if the legislators have failed to pass anti-abortion laws which fit the standards set by Roe v. Wade, it is only because they prefer pushing for an all-or-nothing solution that guarantees them the support of either the "all" lobby or the "nothing" lobby.