Scribd
Upload
11 views5 pages

Debate Abortion 1

Uploaded by

ameerahkeithmacatangay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views5 pages

Debate Abortion 1

Uploaded by

ameerahkeithmacatangay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Group 4 – Pro’s and Against Legalization of Abortion

Leader: Ameerah Keith Macatangay Zyrene Kaye Perez


Ella Regine Del Mundo Marmeyh Roldan
Axl Yurei Reloba
Precious Arielle Marundan
Ryan Jr Lopez
Paul Brayan Abalayan
Pro’s:
1. Argument: Criminalization exposes women to potential torture and
institutional violence.

Reason: Women who request a non-criminalized abortion are often


victims of reproachful judgments and institutional ill-treatment: they are
denied the request and left to their own devices, urged not to abort and
subjected to illegal intervention by justice officials and lawyers aiming to
prevent the practice.

Evidence: The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that court
hearings caused LMR’s abortion to be delayed to the point that she required an
illegal abortion. This violated Article 2 in relation to Articles 3 (right to equality and
non-discrimination), Article 7 (right to be free from torture or cruel inhuman or
degrading treatment) and Article 17 (right to privacy). LMR’s right to privacy was
violated by the courts’ unlawful interference into a decision that should have
included only LMR, her guardian, VDA and her doctor. Failing to protect LMR’s
right to an abortion under Argentinean law, and the resulting suffering violated
her Article 7 rights. Article 7 protects individuals from mental as well as physical
suffering. The violation was particularly serious given her status as a person with
a disability.
Source:
1. https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/abortolegal/en/#criminalization-of-abortion-exposes-women-to-potential-torture-
cruel-inhuman-and-degrading-treatment-and-institutional-violence
2.https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2013/lmr-v-argentina-un-doc-ccprc101d16082007#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations
%20Human%20Rights,she%20required%20an%20illegal%20abortion.
2. Argument: Lack of access to a safe abortion in complicated
pregnancies leads to death by indirect causes.
Reason: Complications arising from abortion have decreased in recent
years for different reasons: access to abortion with medication; training
programs for health service providers and the development of health
care systems in general. However, the data on the impact of these
changes is incomplete.
Unsafe abortion is one of the principal factors affecting women’s health
in developing regions. Estimates from 2012 indicate that 6.9 million
women (or 6.9 per 1000) between ages 15 and 44 underwent care for
complications related to unsafe abortions. The consequences of unsafe
abortion can be noted beyond the immediate effects on a woman’s
health. For instance, unsafe abortions can cause maternal death,
leaving existing children without a mother, or generate long-term health
problems, such as infertility.
Evidence: According to the World Health Organization, approximately
830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and
childbirth every day. Many of these deaths are caused by indirect
complications that exist before pregnancy but are worsened as a
consequence of the pregnancy or childbirth. Many of these deaths could
have been prevented with holistic birth control policies – that help
prevent risky pregnancies – and with counselling about the dangers of
bringing complicated pregnancies to term and the right to interrupt the
pregnancies under safe and legal conditions.
Source: https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/abortolegal/en/#lack-of-access-to-a-safe-abortion-
when-the-life-or-health-of-the-womanis-at-risk-leads-to-death-by-indirect-causes

3. Argument: Criminalization of abortion violates the fundamental


human rights of women and girls.
Reason: Lack of equal access to safe and dignified health services for
women experiencing undesired pregnancy is discriminatory because it only
violates the rights of women.
The State’s failure to guarantee the equal exercise of reproductive
rights violates women’s rights to life, health, physical, mental and
moral integrity, autonomy, intimacy, dignity and the right to freedom
from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Evidence: It goes against Articles 1 and 12 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
1. Article I
For the purposes of the present Convention, the term
“discrimination against women” shall mean any distinction, exclusion
or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or
purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of
equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other
field.
2. Article 12
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to
ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health
care services, including those related to family planning.
Source:
1.https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/abortolegal/en/#criminalization-of-abortion-affects-restricts-
and-violates-the-fundamental-human-rights-of-women-and-girls
2.https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-
forms-discrimination-against-women#article-12

Against:
4. Argument: Criminalization exposes women to potential torture and
institutional violence.

Reason: Women who request a non-criminalized abortion are often


victims of reproachful judgments and institutional ill-treatment: they are
denied the request and left to their own devices, urged not to abort and
subjected to illegal intervention by justice officials and lawyers aiming to
prevent the practice.

Evidence: The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that court
hearings caused LMR’s abortion to be delayed to the point that she required an
illegal abortion. This violated Article 2 in relation to Articles 3 (right to equality and
non-discrimination), Article 7 (right to be free from torture or cruel inhuman or
degrading treatment) and Article 17 (right to privacy). LMR’s right to privacy was
violated by the courts’ unlawful interference into a decision that should have
included only LMR, her guardian, VDA and her doctor. Failing to protect LMR’s
right to an abortion under Argentinean law, and the resulting suffering violated
her Article 7 rights. Article 7 protects individuals from mental as well as physical
suffering. The violation was particularly serious given her status as a person with
a disability.
Source:
1. https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/abortolegal/en/#criminalization-of-abortion-exposes-women-to-potential-torture-
cruel-inhuman-and-degrading-treatment-and-institutional-violence
2.https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2013/lmr-v-argentina-un-doc-ccprc101d16082007#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations
%20Human%20Rights,she%20required%20an%20illegal%20abortion.

You might also like