Pros and Cons

A Debaters Handbook

Debbie Newman, Trevor Sather, Ben Woolgar, Debbie Newman, Trevor Sather, Ben Woolgar

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134616725
• Edition: 19
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Lingua inglese

Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook offers a unique and invaluable guide to the arguments both for and against over 140 current controversies and global issues. Since it was first published in 1896 the handbook has been regularly updated and this nineteenth edition includes new entries on topics such as the right to possess nuclear weapons, the bailing out of failing industries, the protection of indigenous languages and the torture of suspected terrorists.

Equal coverage is given to both sides of each debate in a dual column format which allows for easy comparison. Each entry also includes a list of related topics and suggestions for possible motions.

The introductory essay describes debating technique, covering the rules, structure and type of debate, and offering tips on how to become a successful speaker. The book is then divided into eight thematic sections, where specific subjects are covered individually.

SECTION E Social, moral and religious

DOI: 10.4324/9781315886039-6

Abortion on demand

Abortion was always considered sinful, and was criminalised in Britain and most states of the USA in the nineteenth century. Backstreet abortions became a usual way to limit the size of families. In Britain, the 1967 Abortion Act legalised abortion when it was advised by a doctor on medical grounds. In the USA, the Roe v. Wade case of 1973 in the Supreme Court set down the principle that in the first three months, abortion is to be allowed;and in the second trimester, it is to be allowed if it is required in the interests of maternal health. In neither country is ‘abortion on demand’ – abortions undertaken principally as a form of birth-control at the wish of the pregnant woman – officially allowed, but doctors (especially those in private clinics) will happily certify that carrying the pregnancy to term would cause severe mental distress to the woman. In many Catholic countries, abortion is still illegal.

Pros

[1] It is a woman’s right to decide, in conjunction with the father when appropriate, whether she wishes to have a baby. It is her body and she ultimately should control what happens to it. It is people, not fertilised eggs or foetuses, that have ‘rights’.

[2] If abortion is not allowed on demand, women will go to ‘backstreet abortionists’ where lack of expertise and unsterile conditions can be a serious risk to health. Such backstreet abortions result in an estimated 68,000 deaths per year, according to recent World Health Organization (WHO) figures.

[3] There is no definitive answer as to when a foetus becomes a person in its own right, but up to 24–28 weeks, the foetus is so undeveloped that it is not reasonable to consider it a person and to accord it rights.

[4] In many areas of the world where overpopulation and chronic food shortage are perennial problems, abortion helps prevent bringing children into the world who would probably know only deprivation, illness, starvation and early death.

[5] In an increasingly secular and scientific world, the religious views of some people about the infusion of a foetus with a soul by God at conception, for example, should not be imposed upon the rest of society.

[6] Many young girls who become pregnant would have their future, their education, their family relationships and their career ruined by the birth of a child. Others are pregnant as the result of rape or incest and would have their suffering multiplied indefinitely by carrying the child to term. We cannot put the alleged ‘rights’ of a dividing cluster of cells ahead of such concrete harm to a person.

[7] We allow contraception. Abortion is, in effect, no different – the prevention of the development of a potential human being. In the case of the ‘morning after pill’, the analogy is even closer. If we allow these measures, then we should also allow abortion.

Cons

[1] The right to do as we wish to our bodies must be curtailed by the rights of others to be free from harm. In many instances, the right to do as we wish to our body is overruled; for example, drug laws exist to guard against making a person a danger to others by altering their mind with drugs. In this case, the mother’s rights are overruled by the right to life of the unborn child.

[2] One could argue against banning anything on the grounds that people will carry on doing it on the black market. Abortion is morally wrong and banning it will reduce the number of abortions that occur.

[3] A foetus can survive if born prematurely from as early as 20 weeks, and this boundary is being made earlier all the time by improved incubator technology. Given that we cannot be sure at what point a foetus is a person or can feel pain, we should err on the side of caution and consider the foetus a person from conception or shortly afterwards. Abortion, therefore, is murder.

[4] We can address overpopulation in the developing world with other measures such as increased availability of contraception as well as economic and technical aid programmes.

[5] Human life is sacred, as is recognised by the billions of adherents of the main world religions. God creates each individual at conception and so abortion is murder, and an act against the will of God that destroys God’s work.

[6] Young people should be encouraged to have a more responsible attitude to sex and pregnancy, and should deal with the consequences of their actions whatever they may be. There are even schools now specifically for teenage mothers and their babies to attend. In cases of rape or incest, either the child can immediately be put up for adoption, or exceptions could be made just in these distressing instances.

[7] Barrier methods of contraception (condom, cap) are qualitatively different from abortion in that no fertilised egg ever exists to be destroyed. Other methods (coil,‘morning after’ pill) that are logically equivalent to abortion should not be allowed.

Possible motions

This House would put the mother first.

This House believes that the unborn child has no rights.

This House believes that a woman’s body is her temple.

Related topics

Population control

Euthanasia, legalisation of

Surrogate mothers, payment of

Sex education

Contraception for under-age girls

Affirmative action

There are many minority (and sometimes majority) groups which have suffered historical injustices, and are now under-represented in higher education, business and politics; e.g. women, certain ethnic minorities or castes, and those with disabilities. Are laws protecting equal opportunities enough to address this issue or is affirmative action (AA), or positive discrimination as it is known in the UK, needed to redress the balance and create a level playing field? There are a number of systems of AA including quotas, loaded short lists, additional points or prioritisation. A debate may look at one model or argue the issue in principle. There are many smaller debates within the theme which look at one group or one industry, but this case gives an overview.

Pros

[1] There has been unfair historical discrimination which has led to under-representation today; for example, in the USA women were late in getting equal rights and the black community were discriminated against in law until the 1960s. Even today, for every dollar earned by men in the USA, women earn 74 cents; African-American women earn 63 cents. This is also true of the black population of South Africa after apartheid and the lower castes in India after centuries of oppression. This under-representation must be addressed; equality is a human right and should not just be words on the statute book, but should be seen to happen in practice. Men, and the majority ethnic community in many countries, have an unfair advantage which skews this equality and AA redresses that.

[2] Under-representation is bad in practice as well as in principle. Countries are damaged by not having access to the brightest talent from the largest pool. They also benefit from a greater level of diversity; e.g. representation in parliaments is improved by having more women; and confidence in the police is created through a mix of races/religions – e.g. in Northern Ireland.

[3] Countries that now have equal opportunity laws, but no AA still see under-representation (e.g. black under-representation in universities in the USA, after AA was outlawed; Wales only produced equal representation for women in their Assembly through AA). This is because equal opportunities legislation does not create a culture of change. Affirmative action is the only effective way to address the issue of equality.

[4] Affirmative action only needs to be a short-term measure as it creates a real change which then renders it unnecessary. It does this in four ways. First, self-perpetuation (e.g. women value other women, so a female CEO is less likely to be sexist when hiring and promoting). Second, AA creates role models who raise aspirations and inspire others. Third, AA leads to a change of culture; e.g. women make the workplace more women-friendly. An example of this is that women in parliament in Sweden have introduced better maternity rights. Fourth, AA encourages a breakdown of prejudice both in the workplace and in society as a whole, because when people work together, they learn to value each other, which has beneficial consequences.

Cons

[1] Affirmative action is wrong in principle. Meritocracy is the only fair system and all discrimination must be outlawed. It is unjust to punish today’s white men for the historical injustices committed by others. It is also unfair as it does not give help based on need; it is saying that, for example, in the USA, a rich black man deserves more help than a poor white man, and therefore is still defining people by their race or gender rather than their needs or talents.

[2] Affirmative action can damage the development of a country; for example, South Africa is a country that needs to develop economically for the well-being of all its people (black unemployment is very high), but its priority is AA which means that it is putting less qualified people into jobs and thereby jeopardising development. This is also true with the Policy of Reservation in India which increases the brain drain from that country. This helps neither majorities nor minorities.

[3] Affirmative action is unnecessary because countries evolve organically towards equality. Countries accord protection from discrimination in the law to women and minorities. The first people from these communities then begin to succeed and this then cascades through society. It is a natural process and does not need interference. All countries at present are at a different stage of this process; e.g. Sweden already does not need AA for its women, whereas the Roma in Slovakia are currently under-represented, but are beginning to campaign for their rights in a way that indicates their evolution is starting.

[4] Affirmative action impedes the removal of prejudice rather than causing it to progress. It does this in four ways. First, resentment against minorities increases prejudice, which leads to more discrimination in the long term. Second, AA encourages a culture of mediocrity by saying that a certain race/gender cannot get there on its own. Third, AA backfires: e.g.drop-out rates for black students in the USA at the time when they had AA was triple that of white students. Fourth, AA robs individuals who would have been successful anyway of their achievement and says they only made it because of the policy.

Possible motions

This House would use affirmative action to redress historical injustices.

This House would support quotas for women in parliament.

This House would use positive discrimination to widen diversity in universities.

Related topics

Slavery, reparations for

Political correctness

Homosexuals, ordination of

Alcohol, prohibition of

This debate looks at whether the government should intervene to stop the social and health problems related to alcohol, or whether people should be allowed to make their own decisions in relation to drinking. A Proposition team may want to think about the enforcement and penalties attached to the policy as most people are familiar with the failure of Prohibition in the USA.

Pros

[1] Statistics show undeniably that alcohol plays a role in many crimes. In the UK, it is a factor in 65 per cent of murders, 40 per cent of cases of domestic violence, and a third of all cases of child abuse; the Association of Chief Police Officers puts the proportion of violent crime that is alcohol-related at about 70 per cent. Studies state that 80 per cent of people treated in accident and emergency departments are there because of alcohol use, with 10 people killed through drink-driving every week and thousands permanently scarred every year in drunken fights. Drinking while pregnant harms an unborn baby. The government must intervene in response to these horrifying statistics by banning alcohol consumption.

[2] As well as posing a risk to others, alcohol also harms the user, increasing the likelihood of liver failure, some forms of cancer and involvement in accidents. Alcohol is also linked to high blood pressure, strokes and heart disease. Alcohol abuse can also have serious psychological effects. It is a common misconception that alcohol is not physiologically addictive, but regular use can result in a physical dependence, with all the problems that implies. As an addict cannot truly be said to be exercising ‘free choice’, the state has an even stronger right to intervene.

[3] As alcohol is a harmful and addictive drug, our treatment of it should be the same as our treatment of cocaine or heroin. Moreover, alcohol is for many addicts the first drug on the path to ever harder drugs. Removing this first link in the chain may be an important step to solving the drug problem altogether.

[4] A great deal of money and effort is directed towards solving the problems caused by drink. Surely it would be wiser to focus efforts on eradicating the root cause of these problems?

[5] Many countries, especially in Northern Europe, are seeing binge drinking on the increase, with a particular rise in ...