Live Blogging: Blogger Sakura Speaks to 3410 Lab

Sara Caldwell

Graybeal

Jour 3410 Lab

Speech Article for Religion Beat-Blog

Abortion Rights in America

Abortion: a single, three syllable word packed with enough punch to rile individuals all over the country. Simply mention the 1973 decision from the monumental case Roe v. Wade regarding the legal termination of an unborn fetus and watch people heave and feel the blood of the atmosphere surge. It’s a touchy subject, but two prestigious men amongst the American political community boldly tackled opposing sides at the “Abortion Rights in America” debate last night in the Tate Student Center’s Grand Hall at the University of Georgia.

FOX News Channel Legal Analyst and former New Jersey State Judge, Andrew Napolitano, went back and forth with nationally prominent Interest lawyer and former aide to the Bill Clinton Administration, Michael Waldman.

Napolitano and Waldman both offered their specific, somewhat differing views on this particular matter and how if affects the American nation. Ultimately, after just over an hour of tense, but respectful discussion, both men calmly summed up their arguments by returning to their stances discussed in their opening statements.

With Napolitano advocating the anti-abortion stance of how abortion, the most common medical practice in America, is murder, he squared off against Waldman’s argument of abortion rights, and how Waldman believes it’s the woman’s right to make the decision instead of the government’s.

Crossing the stage, moments after brief introductions of the two debaters and their moderator, both men civilly approached their podiums in wait for the debate to initiate.

Current Director of Debate and Associate Professor out of the Department of Speech Communication with the University of Georgia, Edward Panetta, acted as the debate moderator between Napolitano and Waldman. After leaving the University of Pittsburg as an Instructor and Assistant Director of Debate, Panetta started at the University of Georgia in 1987, and because of his distinguished accomplishments and professional awards through the collegiate debate realm, his successfulness shined brightly next to the much acclaimed men with whom he shared the stage.

While the Grand Hall did not reach anywhere near capacity, only resulting in close to forty seats occupied for the event, the debate hosted by the Ideas and Issues Division of the University Student Programming Board still proved successful by equally covering both sides of the issue at hand.

Regardless of poor attendance, the debate began shortly after 7:30 p.m. in the large hall, and Panetta clearly outlined the structure of the event. Breaking the discussion down into elements, each speaker was allowed 10 minutes for a statement describing their stance on abortion. The second element of the evening included a 20 minute question session where both men were able to directly address specific questions prepared for their arguments. Included among these, was an array of student questions handed in via note cards only moments before a University student affiliated with the group hosting the event started the proceedings.

After winning a coin toss, to insure a fair chance for each contender to woo the audience, Napolitano approached the issue first.

“Some men say that the earth is round and some men say that it’s flat. If its round, could the parliament by enacting a statute make it flat? And if it’s flat, could the King’s command make it round? These words were used by Sir Thomas Moore defending himself in his trial for treason,” said Napolitano. “He was appealing to his jurors common sense, [but was] also appealing to their understanding of the natural law.”

Natural law, according to Napolitano, relates to the order of things described in humanity, which he believes no government majority can change.

“Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity is a gift from God. If you accept that there is a Creator, and you accept we are His creatures, the natural law makes perfect sense,” said Napolitano. “Your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, your right to protect yourself, your right to worship or not to worship, your right to travel, your right to privacy, your right to be left alone: these do not come from the government. They come from your humanity. And as we were created by a perfect God, who is perfect and free, and in His image and likeness, we are free.”

Waldman did not immediately dive into the discussion of the issue. Instead, the former speech writer for President Bill Clinton took a more homely route. Starting off by acknowledging the seriousness of the topic at hand, Waldman understands there are significant moral and ethical issues with the decision of not having, or having, an abortion.

“Choosing to have an abortion is not the same as choosing to have your tonsils taken out,” said Waldman. “I do believe in a woman’s right to choose an abortion. I believe this right flows from the same Constitutional and Declaration of Independence based values that we hold as our center in the United States.”

Being the father of three teenagers, Waldman offered understanding of the severity behind these controversial decisions by sharing about his family and his personal beliefs.

“I have seen the miracle of childbirth. I have seen the miracle of their ultrasounds,” said Waldman. “These issues are not simple and they do not dissolve easily into a category as easy, to me, as saying ‘this can’t happen! This is murder, and this is the wrong thing to do.’”

Ever since the legalizing of abortion in the United States of America, anti-abortion and abortion rights activists have battled, often times to points of violence, about the morality and acceptance of the issues. With one side of the fence believing abortion as the unjustified killing of innocent lives, and the other side arguing the unknown timescale of when human life begins, no new revelations appeared during Thursday’s debate. All the discussion was the same as found previously across America, and no new arguments were made. Yet, despite the absence of any new found approaches to truly resolving the issue, abortion is still a very serious matter. With students actively involved in debates close to 40 years after the legalizing of Abortion, the matter only strengthens in its severity. However, a time of true reconciliation is unknown.