Abortion issue splits debate crowd
By Laban Pelz
The Collegian
The moderator declared a victory for the pro-abortion side in an Oxford-style debate held Wednesday in the Alice Peters Auditorium.
The motion before the house was “The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade,” and the past-capacity crowd voted 77 to 72 in favor of keeping the 1973 ruling.
Head of Fresno Democrats Vincent Lavery moderated the two-hour debate, which featured three panelists representing the “pro” side (against abortion), three speaking for the “con” side (for abortion) and an exuberant audience allowed to cheer, boo, applaud, stomp or hiss at the speakers.
Audience members, many of whom came to the debate already decided on the issue, were asked to vote at the end of the evening for whichever side they thought gave the most persuasive argument.
“Abortion remains as divisive an issue today as it was 30 years ago,” Central California Right to Life president Ed Hurlbutt said in opening. “Abortion is inherently undemocratic. The people don’t support it and don’t accept it.”
Hurlbutt said the fact that five of the U.S. presidents elected since Roe v. Wade have been against the ruling serves as proof. He called the ruling “one of the worst ever,” and one lacking in precedent.
“The question here is ‘who gets to be a member of our society and who doesn’t?’ They (those for abortion) don’t trust you to decide. We trust you,” Hurlbutt said.
Fresno State senior Amy Cobb spoke first for the con side.
“To even ask this question, it means the court had to have made a mistake,” the political science and anthropology major said.
Cobb said Roe v. Wade was ruled the way it was for several reasons, one of which was the fact that state laws at the time of the ruling were no longer needed.
“Abortion procedures had become safe enough so that states no longer needed to regulate abortion,” she said.
Cobb also stressed that the debate must remain on topic, focused on the motion at hand.
“Religious, moral, social, cultural and political interests are not relevant to the issue,” she said. “If you decide the decision was not arrived at wrongly, you must uphold it.”
Pro-side panelist Jonathan Keller agreed with Cobb that the argument must remain focused on the Supreme Court ruling, but said the ruling was incorrect.
“This debate is not about abortion itself. It’s about Roe v. Wade,” he said. “It has not withstood legal opinion or national criticism.”
Also surfacing Wednesday was the topic of partial-birth abortion, with the pro side claiming “even liberal Sweden limits abortion after 18 weeks.”
Keller said most Americans may support Roe v. Wade, but not partial-birth abortion.
“When a person who is pro-choice is asked whether they support Roe v. Wade, they’ll likely say ‘yes,’” Keller said. “But when you start asking whether they support certain types of abortion, a different picture emerges.”
Keller cited the three bills banning partial birth abortion passed by Congress, the first two vetoed by President Bill Clinton and the third signed by President George W. Bush.
While the pro side said partial-birth abortion was common, claiming “thousands of perfectly health babies,” the con side countered, saying the procedure is used “rarely, in tragic cases.”
Patsy Montgomery, director of public affairs for Central California Planned Parenthood, told a story of a woman she knew who, later in her pregnancy, learned the fetus’ brain was attached to the uterine wall, endangering her future fertility and her life.
Montgomery said this woman went to other states for an abortion, but couldn’t obtain one.
During the story a woman in the audience spoke up, and said she was the very woman in the story.
“No one touched me,” she said. “If it’s so common where were they when I needed them?”
The two factions also argued over statistics Wednesday, with those for abortion claiming the procedure is now safer than childbirth.
Former Central California Right to Life president Roberta Genini said the Center for Disease Control used to put abortion at six times safer than childbirth, but wasn’t looking at the statistics properly. She said the CDC now says abortion is three times more dangerous than childbirth.
During the question-and-answer period of Wednesday night’s debate, an audience member asked the pro side panelists whether they would be comfortable with the tax raise that would be needed to support all the babies born as a result of lack of abortion.
Hurlbutt at first referred to the long waiting list for adoption, but later said yes.
Cobb closed for the con side, again reminding the audience it must put aside personal feelings when coming to a decision on abortion.
“You must decide free from pressure and passion,” she said. “This is a medical issue.”
Genini closed with saying “a strong woman sees the value of her child.”
Throughout the debate the audience occasionally got loud enough to cause the speakers to pause, and Lavery had to instruct the panelists to “talk over them.” Speakers would sometimes take time out from their discussion to address audience members’ comments and arguments also broke out among members of the audience.
Lavery said he thought the tone of the debate was going to turn out just as it did.
“I knew it would be within the bounds of decency,” he said, dismissing the notion the event was out of hand. “‘Raucous’ is a compliment.”
Lavery said while the debate often got away from the main topic of Roe v. Wade, most discussion was still about abortion, and therefore pertinent.
Ultimately, “every argument was either for or against Roe v. Wade,” he said.
Fresno State students said they came to the debate with prejudices, but still considered the other side when voting.
Communications major Meg Van Hoorebeke voted for the con side.
“They stuck to the constitutional aspect more strongly,” she said.
Van Hoorebeke is for abortion, but said she still gave the pro side a “50/50 shot” when deciding who gave the most persuasive argument.
“They (the pro side) seemed pulled together, but had contradictions,” she said.
Julia Ronk, who graduated from Fresno State last May with a degree in communicative disorders, voted for the pro side. She said she came in already against abortion, but felt the pro side followed the topic more.
“I didn’t feel they (the con side) answered questions as to why we shouldn’t review the law,” Ronk said.
After the debate Cobb said she would like to have focused more on the U.S. Constitution and other legal issues, but was still pleased with the debate.
“How much can you discuss one issue?” Hurlbutt asked.
The next Oxford debate is scheduled for Nov. 2.
Comment on this story in the News forum >>
|
