Abortion? Pro-Choice Debates.?

Question

I am doing a case in Debate about Abortion. I have taken the stance of Pro-Choice. I am going up against my teacher so I know I will lose but I do want to make ppl think.
I am not asking you to do my homework for me. I am just asking for some good websites that could help me with my Contentions.
The value that I am upholding is Privacy. There is just so much information on this topic that I cannot keep it all organized and I need alittle bit of help.
Thank you for any help.

No stupid answers please. This is a serious debate.

Answer 1

Try this as ammunition:

Amendment IV (of the US Constitution)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While this does not directly address the issue of personal privacy it could reasonably be assumed that the founding fathers intended to limit the ability of the govenment to interfere in the private affairs of the citizens. The right of the people to be secure "in their persons, houses, papers and effects" from searches without warrant implies that the government cannot violate a person's privacy without good reason. Common sense would seem to indicate that this would extend to a person's right to make personal medical decisions without govenment interference.

Take the ball and run with it . . . . I hope you can at least make your teacher sweat a little as he attempts to counter your points. Good Luck!

Answer 2

I don't know what to tell you about that particular sub-issue in the pro-choice debate.

Privacy in the debate has its foundation in doctor-client confidentality. In this Dr-client privilege, the government is not in that loop. Therefore, the government is trying to regulate something over which it can not recieve information.

Another privacy position is that the Government is overstreaching its scope by attempting regulation of medical treatment. The Gvmt does not tell a person they can not seek treatment for cancer, for instance.

Finally, at least all I can think of, is that US Citizens should have the privacy from government scrutnity to do what they want to with their bodies - tattoos, piercings, etc. Pro-lifers put abortion into this catagory, however loosely.

I really think, however, if you want to seriously debate the abortion issue from the pro-choice side, there are some stronger parts of the debate you could stand on.

BTW, I am not PRO-CHOICE, per se, but I just don't think this is in the scope of the federal government, as per the constitution. If anything, it is a state issue...but still none of the governments business.

Answer 3

The Pro-Choice / Pro-Life debate can only be won by the side allowed to frame the debate.

If framed by rights, the right to life trumps and the only question that remains is what to do when both lives are threatened. This means that abortion is only allowed when the life (not lively hood) of the mother is at risk and then it is the mothers choice (since the child can't vote).

If framed by Privacy, the right to be free from governmental interference trumps. This means abortion on demand, for any reason and at any time.

If framed by society, the right of the common good trumps. This means that the government can make the decision, or at least require to consult on the decision.

For "facts" or references, I'd check with both Planned Parenthood's and the National Right To Life's websites.

Answer 4

Choose a different reason, if you would like to review the genius behind the privacy standard applied to allow abortions. Look up the Majority opinion of Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases actually allowing abortion. Its utter nonsense. You should choose a different angle.

Answer 5

No contreseptive is 100% effective. I will not let another use my body as a host to survive. Why should I give up the rest of my life because the contreseptive I was useing failed? I'm not looking for obortion for birth control, but I'm only 17 years old and have no intrest in marriage or parenthood, especially with the father. Nor do I have a desire 25 years from now being adressed with why did I not raise you as my child. Call me selfish, or for that matter call me anything you please but this is my body and this is my life and in it I see no children, as a matter of fact I see no births at this time in my life.---- This is a discussion I heard, I'm a man and never, of course been confronted with the delima so my debate can only be of those I was inspired by. Hope did'nt seem stupid. A woman should have the right the same as a man and descide if she wants to be a parent. Under todays laws, if she gives he baby up there is no insurance that later in life the baby now grown won't show up at her home and start the "your my momma and I want answers", from happening.

Answer 6

Stick to the side of the Supreme Court decision, and you can't lose. Don't get sucked into a debate about religion, and you have a good chance of winning.

From Roe v Wade decision: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

Answer 7

The first and most important thing to remember is that the pro-choice debate has nothing to do with whether abortion is good or not.

The only issue being argued by pro-choice candidates is WHO gets to make the choice -- the individual or the government.

See the link below for the long version of this answer.

Answer 8

Here's a suggestion, argue the point that it is legal, as is alcohol which kills many innocent people each and every year, which puts an end to her argument that innocent babies are being killed. Babies are not being killed, it's a fetus and without the host mother the fetus doesn't have a chance of living. You can also argue that making abortion illegal is legislating morals and not everyone's morals are the same and if you start legislating morals then you start crossing the line of separation of church and state. I would give up the privacy angle, a sixteen year old girl is a minor and has very few legal rights.

Answer 9

I have just finished a course on the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in law in the uk. Fundamental right to life is part of this and raised a debate with us on UK abortion legislation, it may help you to form options or arguments if a case was brought by pro life group using ECHR legislation.

Answer 10

Use the Bible.


“If men harm a woman with child so that here fruit depart her…they should pay a fine as determined by a judge.” This seems to say abortion is a minor sin in God's eyes. Exodus 21:22 KJV
Doesn´t this mean abortion is a minor sin?

Anti-abortion people often turn to obscure Bible verses to promote their views, but harming a fetus is only mentioned in the Bible once, and this is it. You could compare it to the sins that God sees as significant and that God required humans to stone each other to death over...like eating shell fish or working on Sunday.