Abortion: A Necessary Legality - Essay Example

 The subject of legal abortion has lead to a nationwide, often emotion-filled, debate that has endured for many years and will for many years to come. People are decidedly in either in the ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’ camp. There are no compromises to be negotiated: one is concerned with the life of a child; the other is concerned with the freedom of choice and woman’s health. To properly analyze the issue, the opposing viewpoints including the moral, medical and legal aspects must be examined with equal resolve and without bias. The abortion issue is multi-faceted and both sides of the issue provide credible, thought-provoking arguments. Only the individual can disseminate the information and make their own decision based on what they believe to be right. However, everyone should know both sides on equal terms so as to make the decision that is right for them. The abortion issue is often debated strongly, with heat on either side, but a factual examination into the issue removed from the more emotional issues of religion proves that abortions should remain the law of the land if we are to continue to call ourselves a free and just people. Opponents of legal abortion argue that using the right to choose as the foundation for a woman’s right to choose abortion is flawed when the realities of abortion are examined. They claim that most women are coerced into committing this murderous act and insist that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. On a legal footing, pro-life supporters insist that the Founding Fathers of this nation intended to shape not only the legal but the moral direction of American society when they drafted the Constitution, the document that defines the laws of the nation. If they were alive today, the Founders clearly would be against the killing of innocent victims for reasons of convenience. Moving away from strictly legal issues, abortion opponents also argue that there is little freedom of choice for women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. They say the women themselves usually wish to bring their baby to full term. Other powerful influences in her life such as husbands/boyfriends, parents and friends are generally the forces that exact pressures on her to terminate the pregnancy. It’s the abortion that, in many cases, is unwanted by the woman, who would often keep her baby if she could. Most often, the father of the child, not wishing to accept responsibility, may beg or even threaten a woman until she agrees to the abortion. To political conservatives, abortion is the deciding factor when voting. It ranks above war, poverty, the national debt, health care and many other important issues as the top concerns of the country. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they believe, were written by men who believed in God, men who thought prayer was important, that life was sacred, and that many of our current-day controversial practices, such as homosexuality and abortion, were biblically and morally reprehensible. They use this argument as a means of injecting religion into the discussion. Today, however, popular culture has forgotten that our nation was founded, in large part, on Christian principles, and that the Constitution was written for a “moral and religious people” according to political conservatives. Pro-Choice advocates on the other hand believe laws that force women to carry their pregnancy to term contradict the precepts of the U.S. Constitution as well as any definition of compassion and decency. It is unconscionable that a nation founded on and dedicated to civil liberties could allow its citizens to resort to dangerous self-abortion procedures. However, prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 which legalized abortion in the U.S., this practice was commonplace. Before abortion was legal, many thousands of young women were mutilated and died attempting to end a pregnancy though the wealthy were able to have illegal abortions safely. The wealthy were able to travel abroad or pay high fees to a local doctor willing to perform the procedure for a price. Prohibiting abortions does not and has never stopped them from occurring; it just acts to harm women who are then reduced to finding other, less-safe means, of bringing about the same result. Those opposed to Roe also argue that if the Constitution does not directly address an issue, then the Congress, not the courts should decide matters such as this which have weighty moral implications. The Roe decision essentially addressed this question by asserting the government’s concern for the life of the unborn does not outweigh the constitutional rights of the born and thus their decision to allow pregnancy terminations. The Court did draw a line distinguishing what is considered murder of a child. On this issue, those that oppose abortion rights do have legal justification for debate. Viability seems to be an appropriate benchmark because in the early weeks following conception, the fetus is not a conscious being despite the religious contention that the fetus does have a soul. The problem with the question of the soul is that it cannot be scientifically proven to exist or not exist. 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. Recognizing that courts do have the authority to intervene in decisions involving individual rights citing the Constitution as precedence, could laws preventing abortions still be justified in spite of the necessary encroachment on the civil liberties of women? After all, constitutional rights are not unconditional. Why doesn’t the government have an interest in protecting the rights of those not yet born? The Fourteenth Amendment answers this question. It begins by referring to “All persons born ... in the United States,” indicating that the protections under the Constitution refer only to persons who are ‘born.’ Since the fetus is, by definition, not born, the rights of the Constitution cannot be applied to them as yet. The Roe v. Wade case resulted in the Court’s determination that women have the constitutional right to have an abortion prior to when the fetus is viable, meaning when it can survive on its own outside the woman’s womb. The decision invalidated any state law that restricted a woman to have an abortion or a doctor to perform an abortion during the first three months (first trimester) of a pregnancy. Though the case was then and remains today controversial, the Court’s decision was correct from a constitutional context. Though the constitutionality regarding the Roe decision can be argued, it must be acknowledged that since the issue remains intensely controversial more than 30 years after, opponents may be justified in believing the right to an abortion should not be thought of as fundamental. Fundamental rights reprove basic truths in the functioning of a society. Rulings preventing the segregation of the races are now accepted by the public therefore can be viewed as fundamental rights. Abortion rights do not enjoy this universally held view so it is fair to debate the issue. It is understood, however, that the majority of Americans do agree with the Court’s decision and believe it to be a fundamental right. To summarize, those opposed to legal abortions are usually also in the same camp that opposes programs that aid the impoverished and abused children who are the result of unwanted pregnancies. They point to ‘Christian morals’ and ‘family values’ as justification for the loss of liberty, discrimination of the poor and the increased cases of injured women. The first flaw in the pro-life argument is referring to the zygote, embryo and fetus as simply the ‘fetus.’ Various valid opinions are presented as to the exact point where life begins in biological terms, but those of the pro-life opinion dismiss science in their argument and concentrate on the morality of abortion based on the prevailing societal value of life by giving examples of unrelated life and death situations. They believe that the potential life growing in a woman is more important than that woman’s rights to make decisions regarding her body or her own life. They support this by arguing that women are still able to control their bodies to some extent through the use of contraceptive devices. They may have a morally just position but have also disregarded the law of the land in addition to science in the formulation of this opinion. While contraceptive devices are available to women able to afford them, they are also not fail-proof or always employed, particularly in cases of rape. These arguments are based purely on personal morality standards which are viewed by many as questionable. In answer to these issues, the pro-choice group presents reasoned, scientific, logical and viable facts. For example, the majority opinion does not consider a fetus, especially one in early stages of development, to be a person much the same as an acorn is not an oak tree. The majority also do not consider a clump of cells that is indistinguishable from the human form and has yet to develop organs and extremities to be entitled to the same rights to life as the mother. Without measurable evidence that the fetus has a human soul, the scientific evidence of a viable entity, capable of supporting life within itself, remains the only means by which such decisions should be made. On a Constitutional level, the rights of the unborn are unknown and unaddressed, but the rights of the woman are defined and guaranteed, including her rights to freedom and liberty. From a social standpoint, it is a practice women have been engaged in since the beginning of time, with more or less dangers involved, for various reasons. It is unlikely to stop merely in response to a new law forbidding it, but is highly likely to take a more dangerous turn. Women will and should insist on their rights to their own bodies and their own lives. Both sides of the abortion issue contain legal, ethical and social considerations that provoke great emotions. These emotions run deep and touch on fundamental concepts of life, liberty, morality, spirituality and practicality. It is important that those of each opinion understand the opposing viewpoint if they truly wish to debate the topic rather than simply insist that their own viewpoint is correct. Only in this way can the national debate proceed with any hopes of resolution. If both sides understand the issues of the other, the emotional aspect can be lessened and replaced with reasonable conversations. The tendency for both sides to become caught up in the emotions of the issue rather than the facts have contributed to a severe blurring of the issue; however, consideration of the practical issues and available facts suggests that only by keeping abortion legal and educating our youth about the real nature of abortion can everyone’s rights and beliefs be protected. Read More