Abortion, a Right of Choice - Research Paper Example

Abortion, a Right of Choice The topic of legal abortion often leads to emotion-filled ideological debates which have divided the nation’s citizens and politicians. This contentious division has lasted for several years and will for all foreseeable years to come. People are absolutely in either in the ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ camp. There is no compromise to discuss, no middle ground to be negotiated: one concerned with the freedom of choice and woman’s health the other the life of the unborn. To appropriately examine the subject, the opposing viewpoints including the legal, medical and moral aspects must be argued with similar determination and without bias. The topic of abortion is multi-faceted and each side of the issue provides thought-provoking, credible arguments. It’s up to the individual to disseminate the information and make up their own mind based on what they consider to be moral but everyone should understand both positions and approach the subject with a no prejudices so as to make the choice that is comfortable for them. This discussion first presents the ‘right-to-life’ view then follows with the ‘pro-choice’ position, both of which are complex and compelling. The moral case for and against are important in a social context yet inconsequential because these emotionally charged opinions will not decide whether abortions remain safe and lawful or not. The discussion concludes that legal abortions should be the law of the land. Pro-Life This country was built upon the foundation of the freedom of choice. Those who are for legal abortions use this catchphrase while insisting on a woman’s ‘God given right’ to make life choices on her own without the federal or state government interfering. This simple philosophy is accepted by some but the reasoning is flawed when the realities of abortion are studied. Research has shown that the majority of women who have abortions are coerced into committing this deadly act of a living being. In addition, safe abortions are a myth, there is no such thing as they would lead people to believe. Women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy know that there is precious little freedom of choice for them. The women themselves typically want to bring their child to full term. Other dominant influences in her life such as parents, boyfriends/husbands and friends are usually the forces that put pressure on her to end the pregnancy. “Eight out of 10 women surveyed after abortion said they would have given birth if they’d had support and encouragement from family and friends” (Reardon, 2002). It’s the abortion that, in most cases, is unwanted by the expectant mom, not the child. More often than not, the father of the baby, not wanting to accept responsibility, may threaten or mercilessly beg a mother until she agrees to have the abortion. “In 95 percent of all cases the male partner played a central role in the decision” (Zimmerman, 1977). This and other research has clearly illustrated that most women ultimately come to a decision that goes against her conscience. Legal abortion allows fathers to force their desire on women. Some women reluctantly consent to abortion out of desperation because they are afraid of continued abuse. That fear is validated because women who decline to abort their child have been subjected to severe abuses which have escalated to murder if the women continued to refuse to end the pregnancy. The primary cause of death for pregnant women is murder. What other motive than one involving abortion could there possibly be? “Sixty-four percent of women surveyed report being pressured by others into unwanted abortions” (Reardon, 1992).   Immediately after the abortion is performed, the one(s) coercing the ‘choice’ are relieved and rarely, if ever, give the inconvenient subject another thought. Women, in contrast, suffer long afterwards, consumed by guilt and heartbroken over their irreversible decision. “This pain may last a lifetime as they are never able to forgive themselves” (Elliot Institute, n.d.). Another lie promoted as fact is that the aborted fetus is simply a cluster of cells, a small piece of tissue not capable of feeling pain. A developing embryo has a distinctive set of fingerprints in addition to genetically dissimilar patterns than its mother. It is a person unto itself. If a person defines death as the heart stopping and murder as the intentional and forceful stoppage of a heart then abortion is certainly murder. If the evidence of a beating heart legally defines life, then nearly all abortions should be considered illegal because the heart has been created by the 18th day in the womb. According to a British medical journal, when an eight-week-old fetus is stuck with a pin it opens his mouth simulating the crying action and quickly pulls its hand back. By week five, hands, legs and eyes start to develop. “By week six, brain waves are detectable, mouth and lips are present and fingernails are beginning to form. By the eighth week the baby can begin to hear. Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form” (National Right to Life Foundation, n.d.).  The Constitution does not explicitly address the abortion issue but just because the word ‘abortion’ is not written in the Constitution it remains the source of legal precedence for this subject. The liberal understanding of the Constitution on this issue (7-2 in favor) is at the centerpiece of the legal matter. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court has become increasingly conservative in terms of overall philosophy since 1973, many think that soon this understanding will shift nearer to Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion concerning Roe v. Wade. According to Rehnquist, “The so-called right to abortion is not what the majority makes it out to be. The Court must be wrong to find any basis for this right in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment” (Pavone 2005). Pro-choice Laws that compel women to take their pregnancy to full term contradict the principles of the U.S. Constitution in addition to any definition of decency and compassion. It is unconscionable that a country founded on and dedicated to individual liberties could permit its citizens to opt for dangerous self-abortion procedures. However, before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the U.S., this barbaric practice was routine. Before abortion became legal, untold thousands of young women were maimed and died attempting to end a pregnancy. However, the rich were able to have safe abortions. The wealthy women were able to travel overseas or pay a premium to a local physician willing to perform the procedure but a poor or middle income woman had to resort more harmful options. Legally prohibiting abortions will not and has never prevented them from happening; it only acts to harm women. Those who oppose Roe also submit that if the Constitution does not specifically deal with an issue then Congress and not the courts ought to decide subjects such as this which have substantial moral implications. The Roe decision fundamentally dealt with this question by affirming the government’s interest for the life of those unborn does not prevail over the constitutional rights of those born and therefore their judgment to allow terminations of pregnancy. The Court did make distinction of what is considered killing of a child. On this matter, those that oppose a women’s right to choose do have legal justification for argument. Viability appears to be a suitable benchmark since in the early weeks after conception the fetus is not yet a conscious entity though those of religious belief contend that it does have a soul. “Viability is somewhat scientifically determined while the presence of a soul is not. Therefore, the line can only be drawn at the viability of the unborn as any other method by which to determine when abortions are considered murder is unclear” (Dorf, 2003). Those against legal abortion rights claim that the fetus whether viable or not still is a living being in much the same way as any walking, talking child or adult. Mothers who have had abortions surely cannot think she is killing a living baby or the practice would be an uncommon procedure. “I don’t think, in most cases, that the woman, who aborts her child, consciously believes she is killing a person. As philosopher Francis Beckwith points out, ‘why do women only kill their fetuses when confronted with practical difficulties, rather than their already born children, if they truly believe their fetuses are fully human?’” (cited in Smith, 1985: 16). Understanding that courts do in fact have the power to intercede in decisions involving individual liberties referring to the Constitution as precedence, could laws disallowing or limiting abortions as is occurring today be acceptable in spite of this obvious encroachment on the civil rights of women? Why shouldn’t the government try to protect the rights of the unborn? The Fourteenth Amendment provides an answer to this question which state legislatures that are restricting abortion rights do not seem to know. This Amendment begins by referring to “All persons born ... in the United States” (“Fourteenth Amendment”, 2006), signifying that the protections guaranteed by the Constitution only apply to persons who are ‘born.’ Though the Roe case was controversial then and remains no less so today the Court’s determination was proper from a constitutional context. Those who criticize the decision have usually made their claim based on personal moral views which are rendered irrelevant when the words of the Constitution are examined. The critic’s moral opinion, which is in opposition to the Court’s decision, can be promptly invalidated by evaluating the prior constitutional decisions, the precedents, reached by the Court as well as reading the exact words contained in the Constitution. However, there are some valid questions regarding the Constitutionality of the Roe decision that merit addressing. When most persons speak critically of the Court’s decision, they support their opposition based solely on a moral basis but judges, scholars and lawyers who denounce the decision should do so based only on constitutional principles. Their argument should speak to both the 14th and the Ninth Amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (“Bill of Rights”, 2006). The Ninth Amendment, in addition to other amendments in the Bill of Rights, was originally understood to apply only to the federal government and not to the individual states. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) extended the power of the Bill of Rights to include the states. Court decisions since then have provided sufficient precedent of this Amendment which states, in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (“Fourteenth Amendment”, 2006). Most legal experts contend that the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to mean that state legislatures cannot make laws that infringe on rights that are outlined in the Constitution although this has been commonplace with regards to restrictive abortion laws. Conclusion The constitutionality of the Roe decision has been decided yet it can be credibly argued therefore it must be admitted that because the issue remains extremely controversial nearly four decades after, critics could be justified in thinking the legal right to have an abortion might not be considered as fundamental. Fundamental rights solidly identify basic truths regarding the functioning of a society. For example, court decisions preventing racial segregation are today widely accepted by society therefore can be thought of as fundamental rights. The legality of abortion does not have this same commonly held opinion so it is reasonable to debate the subject on legal grounds although that is rarely the arena that it is debated. However, it is understood that most Americans agree with the Court’s decision and consider it to be a fundamental right. The opposing opinions on the abortion issue include legal, social and ethical considerations that bring about great emotions. It is vital that persons of each opinion appreciate the opposing viewpoint if they really want to discuss the topic instead of simply stubbornly insisting that their own perspective is right. Only by this method can the national debate progress with any chance of resolution. When each side better understand the concerns of the other, the emotional aspect of the issue will be diminished and replaced with constructive dialogue. The philosophical divide regarding the morality of abortion will not likely be bridged but the debate regarding the legality of abortion is a subject for the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision cannot legitimately be termed a mistake unless the critics are willing to completely ignore the legal process as well as the wording of the Constitution itself. Works Cited Dorf, Michael D. “Was Roe v. Wade Rightly Decided? Will it be Overruled?” CNN Law Center. (January 23, 2003). July 8, 2011 Elliot Institute. (n.d.). “Forced Abortions in America.” After Abortion. Springfield, IL. July 8, 2011 National Right to Life Foundation. (n.d.). “Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth.” National Right to Life. July 8, 2011 Pavone, Frank. “Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent.” The Catholic Exchange (June 22, 2005). July 8, 2011 < http://catholicexchange.com/2005/06/22/90491/> Reardon, David C. Aborted Women, Silent No More. Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, pp. 11-21. (2002). “Roe v. Wade: 1973Women’s Rights on Trial.” 1st Ed. New York: Thompson Gale. (1997). Smith, Rachel Richardson. “Abortion, Right and Wrong.” Newsweek. p. 16. (March 25, 1985). July 8, 2011 “United States Constitution Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. (2006). July 8, 2011 “United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.” Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. (2006). July 8, 2011 Zimmerman, Mary K. Passage Through Abortion. New York: Prager Publishers. (1977). Read More