Abortion, Choice and a Right - Research Paper Example

Abortion, Choice and a Right Abstract Abortion is the subject that best illustrates the wide ideological divide in the country. Persons on each side of the debate have had the chance to examine all the same evidence, have heard all the arguments on both moral and legal grounds yet came to opposite conclusions. To many, abortion is legal but is against “God’s law” and is morally reprehensible. Some goes as far as to call it murder. The majority of Americans agree with the Justices of the 1973 Supreme Court which decided the rights of the born took precedence over the rights of the unborn. The often contentious national discussion concerning legalized abortion is emotional and divisive. Politicians must declare themselves “pro-choice” or “pro-life” while campaigning for office. The debate has lasted for several decades and will continue for the foreseeable future. To properly examine the subject, the opposing viewpoints including the legal, medical and moral aspects must be argued with similar determination. Abortion is a multi-faceted subject and both sides of the issue present credible, thought-provoking arguments. It’s up to each person to parse through the scientific and legal aspects of the issue and decide for themselves based on what they deem to be morally acceptable. The enormity and complexity of the issue demands that all voting citizens understand both points of view and attempt to consider the issue with minimal biases to make a decision those best suits their intellect and moral comfort zone as well. This paper presents the pro-choice and right-to-life view positions, both of which are compelling then concludes that legal abortions should remain legal and safe. It’s an election year meaning the abortion debate is again a main focus of the national dialogue and during this election cycle birth control, an issue widely considered decided two generations ago, has found its way into the discussion. Women’s right to make decisions regarding their body versus moral considerations remains a hot topic and is essentially another science versus religion debate. Pro-choice advocates, the civil right and science side of the debate argue that laws which force women to give birth to an unwanted child conflict the principle of liberty defined by the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, such restrictive and intrusive laws are contradictory to any definition of compassion and decency. The alternative to an abortion being performed legally in a sterile clinic by a qualified health care professional is self abortion which is dangerous often resulting in the maiming or death or a young women. Unless that young woman has access to the funds required to travel overseas. A significant number of Americans do not acknowledge the brutality and class inequality criminalizing abortion would cause. It is difficult to understand how they or a nation founded on and dedicated to personal liberty could allow fellow citizens to subject themselves to a risky self-abortion. Women have always had and will always have abortion. The question is whether or not it will be safe. Prior to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case in 1973, which the Justices decided 7-2 that abortion was constitutional, the barbaric practice of self or “back-alley”-abortion was routine. Legally barring abortions will not, cannot and has never stopped them from occurring; it only serves to physically injure women. Those opposed to Roe also suggest that when the Constitution does not expressly deal with a subject then it’s not the responsibility of the courts to decide such weighty matters. Rather, the Congress should decide questions such as this that carries deep moral implications. Conversely, individual rights should not be subject to a vote. That’s why they’re called rights. The Roe decision answered the fundamental issue surrounding abortion by establishing that the interest of government for the life of the unborn does not supersede the constitutional rights of persons who are born and consequently their decision terminate their pregnancy. The Court also made the distinction concerning what is considered the murder of a child. “The Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus’s life may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems.” (Tushnet, 1986). Viability seems to be a rational benchmark because the fetus is not yet conscience during the early weeks after conception. However, those of religious convictions argue that a life definitely does have a soul immediately following conception. Those who support the pro-life agenda point to research that confirm the majority of women who choose abortion were coerced in some way into having the procedure, usually by the person who fathered the child. Because abortions are legal, fathers are able to coerce the mother into getting an abortion. Some women grudgingly agree to have the procedure due to desperation and fear. They are scared of physical and emotional abuse. This fear is confirmed with the realities of life following the Roe decision. Women who refuse to terminate their pregnancy have been subjected to severe abuses by their male partner, abuses which too often have escalated to murder. This problem has been deemed a “widespread epidemic” by the Elliot Institute in a 2010 report. “Women who refuse requests from their husbands or boyfriends to have abortions are often finding themselves subject to violent attacks that sometimes result in their deaths.” (Ertelt, 2010). Murder is the principal cause of death for pregnant women. Abortion is the reason. What other motive could there possibly be? The Elliot Institute report finds most abortions are coerced by the father, relatives or both. One survey of women who underwent the procedure found that two-thirds said they felt pressured by others to abort. The same survey discovered that at least eight of ten women were not offered the counseling they could have desperately used during the most emotional time in their young life while making such a life altering decision even though the majority reported they felt uncertain and hurried regarding the abortion. Immediately following the abortion procedure, the person(s) persuading the mother to make this choice are relieved and seldom, if ever, think about the inconvenient incident following the procedure. Women, by contrast, continue to suffer long after the abortion, heartbroken over their irreversible decision and haunted by guilt. “It may be months later. It may be years later. The haunting may be triggered by the anniversary of the abortion or the date when the baby would have been born. It may be triggered when the woman has another child and realizes the baby she aborted was no different from the one she holds in her arms. It may be triggered when she loses a much-wanted later pregnancy or has trouble conceiving.” (Winkler, 1992). Whatever and whenever triggers occur, these intense feelings can ultimately overwhelm a woman. The faction opposed to legal abortions also contend that the zygote, embryo, fetus, is a person, the same as anyone else breathing the air and walking the earth. The “baby” is not simply a tiny cluster of tissues; it is a living being capable of experiencing pain. The developing embryo has a unique set of fingerprints and is genetically dissimilar from its mother 20 weeks following conception. More importantly, at six weeks, the embryo has a developed, four chamber, beating heart. (MDH, 2011). Society defines death as when the heart stops beating. Shouldn’t society define when life begins when the heart starts beating? Society also defines murder as forcefully and intentionally stopping a heart to beat. Therefore shouldn’t abortion following the sixth week be considered murder as well? Many women do not realize they are pregnant by the time their baby has a developed heart. Regarding the legal aspect of abortion, pro-life advocates argue that although the Constitution does not expressly mention the word “abortion” its legality, as all other legal issues, can be interpreted and decided using the country’s preeminent legal document. Pro-choice advocates agree on this point. At present it is the liberal interpretation of the Constitution that prevails. The conservative legal interpretation was written by Justice Rehnquist in his dissent of the Roe ruling, “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). In a 7-2 decision the conservative leaning Supreme Court legalized abortion striking down state laws denying a women’s right to make decisions concerning her body. The Court ruled that a person’s right to privacy as defined by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed a woman’s right to have an abortion.  The right to privacy is also protected by the Ninth Amendment.  According to Justice Henry Blackmun in his majority opinion the right to privacy was extensive enough to “encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (“Roe,” 2011). The Court decided a person’s substantive right to privacy is unambiguous in the Constitution thus the law must allow a woman to end her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester, the approximate point of viability. Following the first trimester, the state can regulate abortion procedures but must allow them if medically necessary for the mother. Another Constitutional argument for the rights of women and allowing safe abortions is found within the Fourteenth Amendment which refers to rights of citizenship being afforded to those “born” in the U.S. Therefore the rights of the mother are considered over the imagined rights of the unborn. “The court held that the word ‘person’ in the Constitution does not include the unborn.” (“Roe,” 2011). The abortion battle has raged for more than forty years and continues at full speed with no chance of compromise on the near or far horizon. Just as one person could not vote for one politician, the same that their neighbor endorses wholeheartedly, otherwise similar citizens fall on different sides of this emotional, contentious and perpetual issue. Pro-lifers view abortion as various forms of murder. Pro-choice people win both the moral and legal argument. Abortions occurred before it was legal and will continue if it is made illegal again. Legal means safe. Young women should not be forced into “back alley” abortions. The life of a living, breathing person, a person with a name, personality, family, history, etc is far more important than an embryo or zygote. The Court agrees as do most Americans and all societies in the western world. The Constitution refers to we the people which is defined as living people. Case closed. References Ertelt, Steven (May 21, 2010). Report Finds Women Who Refuse Abortions Often Face Violent Attacks, Death. Lifenews.com accessed February 21, 2012 from Minnesota Department of Health (December 12, 2011). If You Are Pregnant: Information on fetal development, abortion and alternatives. Accessed February 21, 2012 from < http://www.health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.html> Pavone, Frank. (June 15, 2005). “Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent.” Free Republic Accessed February 21, 2012 from < http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1424436/posts> Roe v. Wade (September 30, 2011). Federal Government, 1973 - Continuing Controversy United States History Accessed February 21, 2012 from < http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2603.html> Tushnet, Mark (1986). The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey from Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition. pp. 162 Accessed February 21, 2012 from Winkler, Kathleen (1992). When the Crying Stops Abortion, the Pain and the Healing. Accessed February 21, 2012 from Read More