IMAGINE you are a member of a future Constitutional Convention and are asked to debate the following resolution: That abortion should be decriminalized. You are asked to take a definite stand. Affirmative or Negative. WHAT SAY YOU?
TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION
ABORTION is the intentional termination of a viable human pregnancy.
Abortion in the Philippines is generally illegal. “Under the abortion provisions of the Revised Penal Code of 1930, as amended, a person who intentionally causes an abortion with the consent of the pregnant woman is subject to a penalty of prison correccional (i.e., imprisonment for from six months to six years) in its medium or maximum period. A physician or midwife who causes or assists in the performance of an abortion is subject to the maximum period of this penalty, as well as suspension from the right to follow a profession. A woman performing an abortion on herself to conceal her dishonour is subject to the minimum or medium period of this penalty. A person performing an abortion without the consent of the pregnant woman is subject to a penalty of prison major (i.e., 6-12 years’ imprisonment).”
The 1987 Constitution also solemnly declares that:
Section 12. [a] The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
[b] It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
[c] The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
In recent years however, it has been reported that the Philippines is undergoing an abortion crisis with the World Health Organization estimating that between 400,000 and 800,000 illegal abortions per year are occurring in the country. Needless to say, few if any of those cases are prosecuted, and many have questioned the need for criminal sanctions on humane and civil libertarian grounds. Anecdotally, unwanted babies are being flung from high rises and taxi cabs, say news reports, and the cura of Quiapo was recently gifted with a foetus in a jar of cream cheese on World Population Day.
The exact meaning of decriminalization ought to be defined by the AFFIRMATIVE side and accepted by the NEGATIVE for the purpose of debating the proposition.
RESOLVED: That abortion be decriminalized.
What say you?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Benign0,
I think your position might lead to discrimination against the mentally disabled or as they say nowadays, the mentally challenged. Adopting that as a criterion would be extremely impractical since there is hardly a universal test for consciousness. I think it suffices to assume that the progeny of an existing human being (one capable of reproduction) is surely human too.
Michael Behe is a creationist. I say, hehe.
Benign0, yes our positions are similar although persistent vegetative state is different from brain death. The latter is a stricter criterion. Also, it’s *not* consciousness *nor* self-awareness that should be the criteria but rather the physical presence of brain activity which can be measured by fMRI or other such instruments.
DJB, i’m not dodging the issue, i’m simply pointing out that human life is not a purely scientific concept. And didn’t i make my position clear above (at 12:01) when i said…
I even rephrased the same position (at 2:23pm)…
How can you say that i was not clear on where i stood? Just to make it clearer…
Just as brain death => end of human life, it follows that brain [stem] activation => start of human life.
[comment at smoke]
It is claimed that about half a million illegal abortions occur in the Philippines every year. It is further claimed that liberalizing contraception would diminish if not prevent abortions. Yet in countries where contraception is widely available, there are still a lot of abortions. It seems likely that even if there were a true reduction due to contraception, there would still be abortions occuring. It seems to me that the criminalization of abortion is a separate issue from contraception and that debating it now also addresses the accusation that there is a slippery slope between contraception and abortion.
Simply to deny that contraception is anything like abortion dodges an important aspect of the whole issue. It is disingenuous to say this is all about “reproductive health” and nothing to do with reproduction and populations. That’s what makes undecideds suspicious. Everybody “knows” we are talking about birth control. There is something hypocritical about insisting it’s just about “reproductive health”.
Besides, my purpose in provoking the debate is to make people confront what they truly believe about things.
cvj,
Do I take it to mean that you do not recognize human life before birth, since you mention “baby”?
By the way, fMRI cannot distinguish intelligent brain activity from non-intelligent activity. Also this seems to be a rather impractical criterion for deciding when life begins, since it depends on the availablity of an MrI machine and might differ from person to person for no fundamental reason. But I am unclear about your position.
WHEN would the Constitution regard a human being to have come into its jurisdiction and protection? (are you requiring an MRI test for citizenship??)
DJB, i do recognize human life before birth because the brain stem develops even before birth. Based on this criteria, abortion should be illegal at the point when the brain stem reaches a stage of development similar to that of a baby.
We don’t need to fMRI each individual pregnancy. We only need to set the point of no return which is the earliest biologically possible point of a pregnancy in which this could occur. If and when abortion becomes necessary beyond this stage of the pregnancy(e.g. in situations where the life of the mother is threatened), then we can say that it has become a matter of choosing between two human lives.
It is not a requirement to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent brain activity. Besides, I don’t think technology has reached the point where it can do so.
As a practical matter, ‘citizenship’ can be given after birth. Before that, it’s superflous because the baby is not going anywhere without his or her Mom.
cvj,
In the Constitution, we need something more definite than “abortion should be illegal at the point when the brain stem reaches a stage of development similar to that of a baby.”
This can’t easily be verified and may be discriminatory against babies with neurological disorders.
I will next present an Affirmative Side argument to DECRIMINALIZE abortion, that assumes human life begins at conception.
DJB, i agree that, for purposes of legal implementation, we need to set a specific point in time (for example, beyond the 12th week etc.) which is why i mentioned the point of no return above.
I strongly recommend to everyone on the thread the following book by Rosamund Scott, RIGHTS, DUTIES AND THE BODY, Law and Ethics of the Maternal-Foetal Conflict–a thoughtful book that covers this topic from a philosophical standpoint.
It is available on Google Scholar at the above link
If abortion means to terminate human life then I am against decriminalizing it. And so the question that needs to be resolved first is at what point does that thing inside the womb become human? This seems to be the crux of the abortion issue.
Birth control, if it refers to using devices or medication to prevent or avoid conception, is not abortion. It is a preemptive act as opposed to a corrective measure.
MB,
Suicide is illegal and once was criminalized! Not anymore. Abortion in the Philippines is punishable by a maximum of 6 years in prison, so as a form of homicide it is not considered “heinous” under law.
But I would suggest that the focus of this discussion is whether criminal sanctions are right for abortion. Although there is human life at conception (my belief) it is not separate human life from the life of the mother.
What this suggests to me is that there is also an important issue between the rights and duties of the State vis a vis the individual.
The discussion gets muddled because we often do not see clearly the difference between individual morality and the “morality” of the State as defined in a Constitution.
I think it is possible for us to hold that abortion is “immoral” and even “illegal” but that criminal sanctions are not right for this situation, that the State must be more circumspect about its role in the enforcement of laws and allow other institutions, like Churches to solve the problem, if they can. After all there are many societies where abortion is decriminalized yet they have very low rates.
Maybe it’s more about deciding whether this is a debate on morality or ethics.
benign0,
I think the distinction between morality and ethics is useful, but I think not decisive in the matter. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, but we cannot expect ordinary citizens to comport themselves as philosophers, though we expect moral behavior, indeed enforce it. I agree however that we are considering mainly ethical considerations that ought to be part of the Constitution.
DJB, everyone, including the ordinary citizen (which i think includes you, me & Benign0) has a philosophy. For example, as J.M. Keynes said…
That holds true for philosophical beliefs as well. In fact, one of the purposes of the subject is to make us aware what our underlying philosophies are. That’s why the Social (or Human) Sciences is important.
The difficulty with setting the beginning of human life later than conception is that this seems to muddle the difference between contraception and abortion, which I believe is the key distinction to explain to the public. Were we to accept that human life does not begin until 12 weeks into pregnancy, or through a functional test of the brain, is that we would have to say that aborting the pregnancy before that point is really just contraception. I think that is a very hard sell, whereas I think we all agree that if done before conception, it is preventing the formation of human life, which would be very different than destroying it.
From the political or ideological standpoint, such a definition is not really helpful to pro-contraception, anti-abortion folks, which is where I think most reasonable people are.
what if the issue is about the health of the mother???is it valid to abort the baby
rep please????
Marc,
sorry, just saw your question. From what I read, that is one condition in which abortion becomes an “acceptable” option, though I must say, we cannot generalize and it is a grim choice no matter what.
Although the World Health Organization estimates that about half a million abortions occur in the Philippines annually, I’ve never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted or put in jail.
no to abortion!!!abortion is not a way of dicreasing our population coz, there is many ways to control our population,also abortion is not legalized our country ,and one against of it is the church .Its a SIN!!!!
it may be a sin, but quite possibly it may not be illegal.
kinda like premarital sex. it’s a sin, right? but it’s not against the law.
:D
There is a further possibility, ranilo, jester:
It can be considered to be immoral and even illegal, but society can decide that it should not be a crime! As it stands today, it is unconstitutional, illegal AND criminal. Yet have you ever heard of any prosecution or imprisonment for abortion? BTW, society has decided that the maximum punishment for abortion is six years in prison.
I think it should be treated more like “suicide”. Society may consider it immoral and illegal, but may decide that it is not the State’s place to enforce criminal punishments for such an act.
That is why this post title speaks of decriminalization.