Should Abortion Be Legalized: Pros and Cons - Essay Example

PHI 103: Informal Logic October, 24 Abortion has been one of the most hotly debated issues in American society over the past generation, and today it remains a controversial issue due to its many complicated arguments. Such arguments involve religion, science, and morality. Strong emotions emerge on both sides of the arguments. In fact, there are many different sides of the argument when accouting for nuances within each mainline position, and emotion often pushes people who take a stance on either the pro-choice or pro-life side to temper their arguments depending on the set of circumstances involved. Pro-choice supporters argue for a woman’s right to make her own choices, but are willing at times to consider some restrictions if the abortion comes very late in the term of pregnancy. The right to terminate a pregnancy is thought by them to be a choice that a woman makes to be in charge of her own body. Therefore, it is almost held as a sacred obligation that society does not interfere with that choice. In cases of late-term abortions, they are sometimes willing to balance the life of the child. Pro-life advocates want to strip that right. For them, the life of the child is held as sacred, and it must be balanced against the choice of the mother. Even they are generally willing, however, to make exceptions in the case of danger to the mother’s life or pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Such balancing is often done with heavy hearts on both sides of the issue. To complicate matters even further, some hold extreme positions that do not allow for any compromises at all. Some advocate for choice and some for life, with no exceptions. This is why abortion has remained, on both sides over the years, a hotly-debated and controversial issue. This paper will summarize the arguments that have been involved in this debate. PRO CHOICE One of the main problems with abortion’s legality in the view of those who argue for a pro-choice position is the procedure’s terrible history. In the past, women had to go to doctors or unlicensed individuals (e.g., midwives or, worse, shady “chemists”) for illegal abortions. These procedures were often performed in secret, unclean surroundings. Most of the operators who performed abortions when they were illegal were poorly qualified (or, as stated, unlicensed), and the care delivered was unsanctioned, unregulated, and dangerous. It sometimes resulted in infertility. Some women met with tragic circumstances, including death by infection and bleeding that could have been prevented if abortions had been done legally. They sometimes had to go across state lines to get procedures, so that the travel and costs of abortions put it out of reach for many poor women or, for example, younger girls who were afraid of being found out. The stigma of receiving an illegal abortion could also lead to a woman being shunned by some in society. Pro-choice advocates believe in a woman’s right to privacy and the right to have the freedom to make a choice to terminate a pregnancy. But this choice is informed by a recognition of the tragic history of pre-legalized abortion. Women who were not able to exercise their rights to their bodies without risking death didn’t really have a defined right to privacy or a reasonable assurance of healthy options. The poor often had to go utilize the most unclean and unsafe of options. An inability to exercise a right without risk of death is essentially the same as not having the right at all. Legal abortion operates with this history in mind. Another concern is the freedom to act without regard to community standards. Groups that favored the pro-choice position lobbied state and federal government and brought cases to court to change the laws and protect women’s rights. They won in the U.S. Supreme Court through cases such as the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and through passage of laws such as the Freedom of Choice Act (F.O.C.A.). The verdict in Roe v Wade affected 46 states. Each state set their own guidelines on this issue, however. For those on the pro-choice side, allowing the states to impose laws on women still restricted rights afforded by the first and fourteenth amendments. Therefore, the issue of abortion for pro-choice advocates has become a leading issue of feminist rights and equal protection under the law. Again, not affording everyone a right that can be exercised without risk or restriction is thought by pro-choicers to be the same as a false promise of a right. In order to be an actual right, in order to fulfill the right to privacy found in Roe v. Wade, abortion must be equal in all jurisdictions and must be administered without fear or risk of death (except, of course, for normal medical risks faced by anyone undergoing any procedure). In considering the right to choose what to do with one’s body, neither the standards of the community nor the wishes of intimates should negate the exercise of the right, according to those who favor the Pro-Choice position. Some doctors, prior to performing abortions on married women, require consent of husband. Pro-Choice proponents of The Freedom of Choice Act are fighting for such laws of restrictions on abortions to be lifted. This effort involves changing both laws and standards of practice, restoring all rights and banning any future limitations. This also involves offering public funding for women who are on Medicaid or Medical Assistance or Tricare. Receiving benefits is often necessary to exercise a choice to terminate. This is in opposition to “Hyde Amendment” and Harris vs. McRae 448 U.S. 297 (1980), both policies that attempted to regulate abortion by cutting off funds. The Pro-Choice position, then, generally argues for a policy mandate that protects women’s rights, and works to ensure they can be exercised fully. Restrictions that violate a woman’s right to exercise her own reproductive options, according to the Pro-Choice position, all have the same result. Webster vs. Reproductive Case is a great example. Families on limited income, who may already have children, live on a tight budget. Having more pregnancies, and being forced by abortion restrictions to grow the family, adds a level of stress that cannot be afforded and can be debilitating. This may result in unwanted children. Abuse can occur in some such cases. Psychological and physical problems can also occur. The end result is that restricting abortion can be ultimately unhealthy for the whole family. This is despite the considerations of the moral right to abortion. Pro-Choicers often argue that they actually have as much respect for family values as those on the Pro-Life side, but they express them differently. They want every child to be a wanted child, and families to be able to plan their size and finances with abortion as one tool to be used as a last resort. Of course, the right to privacy and the health concerns of the mother and family must be weighed against the presumed rights of the fetus/child. The timeline involved in terminating a pregnancy therefore becomes a controversial issue that must be defined in order to balance the full slate of rights and possible rights. Some people say personhood originates from the first day of conception. In this argument, it is believed that a life as a human being exists from the very earliest signs of cell formation. The Pro-Choice position questions that position. In researching books and articles on embryos and fetuses at their beginning stages, one can easily find documents from doctors and scientists stating that a fetus is not a person. It sems to stand to reason that this is the case, as the fetus cannot exist outside of the womb. The Pro-Choice position relies on a scientific justification of the origins of life and thus generally accepts a trimester configuration that allows abortions early in the pregnancy and considers increasing controls on abortions later in the pregnancy as more reasonable. While some would even allow abortion late in the term, most on the ProChoice side would only allow the most extreme danger to the mother’s life, as determined by the woman’s doctor, to result in an abortion in the last trimester. Again, this argument stands to reason,because it is at that point that the child becomes a viable person, able to survive outside of the womb. Personally, I believe in a woman’s right to have an abortion. No one should be able to make a choice involving such critical matters as life, health, and family for another person. The right to one’s own body involves a basic statement of what you believe in and what is right for you (and your family). Only you know what is right for you. No one, not even the state or federal laws, should make the choice for you. Choices about life, health, and family should be exclusively by a woman in consultation with her doctor. PRO LIFE Pro-Life advocates believe in the right to life as primary. While Pro-Choice advocates do not believe a fetus is not a person, Pro-Life support groups believe that a person gets rights and personhood from the moment of conception. In other words, the fetus is equal to a living breathing person. The Pro-Life position has as a main objective to overturn government and state laws allowing abortion. In Pro-Life proponents’ view, to give women more choices to terminate a potential life and look at other options is essentially equal to sanctioning murder. Religion shapes this way of thinking and gives it moral value. As a religion-backed view, the position describes what is acceptable from a moral point of view. The Pro-Life position is sometimes radical, resulting in killing of doctors who perform abortion. Those who hold this view may feel in their hearts that even such radical positions are justified because of the belief that women are murdering their children. While this is extreme, it shows a contradiction in the Pro-Life position. If the life of a fetus is to be protected at all costs, even though the fetus is unable to exist outside of the womb, it seems logical that killing an abortion doctor should also be unacceptable. While most Pro-Life advocates do, in fact, disapprove of such positions, it is also likely that many of them support, for example, capital punishment. It is difficult to see why life should be precious in one case (even though many question whether it is actually yet life) while it is not in another. The religious impulse involved in the Pro-Life position is likely the source of this contradiction. Pro-Lifers tend to view fetal “life” as innocent and uncorrupted, while those on death row made choices that put them there. While one can see some justification for this position, it fades when one asks whether the fetus is even “alive.” In other, words, the pro-Life positions seems in the end to be just a political reaction to a liberal policy that its advocates do not like generally. They are also less likely to agree with other feminist politics. Therefore Pro-Life is shown to be more about politics than about religion. Like their counterparts on the Pro-Choice side, Pro-Life advocates have also been forced to expand their arguments to include a number of other social implications, including health. They have attempted to argue that women who abort their children have psychological difficulties and face higher levels of infertility and other health problems. They have also argued that women can always choose to carry the pregnancy to term and then put the child up for adoption in order to aid family planning. While such advocates often do not act personally to adopt and they also often argue against the kinds of public funding and assistance that their positions would require if they were truly committed to helping women during pregnancy, this position at least offers some alternatives to abortion that presents women with a way to achieve family goals without resorting to abortion. The position would seem more genuine if it was backed up with more action and funding. Ironically, one other argument that can be made by abortion advocates that seems to appeal to those who are against abortion is that abortion’s legality has increased public safety. Because there are fewer unwanted children being born into poor and dysfunctional families, there are also fewer children growing up in poverty with little parental involvement. This has tended to result in a decrease in crime over the decades since Roe v Wade. Pro-Life advocates are generally law-and-order types who favor public safety. Therefore, allowing abortions gets them to a preferred social position despite their distaste for the procedure that is necessary to achieve that end. Pro-Life advocates, by arguing for the sanctity of life, have to consider the health of the mother and the benefits to public safety if they are ultimately to win the argument. One final argument that those on the Pro-Life side can raise to show some level of hypocrisy on the pro-Choice side is the issue of control of one’s body on issues other than abortion. Most Pro-Choicers do not support prostitution or legalized drug usage. Almost universally they favor allowing a woman to seek child support, even if the father did not want to have the child. This position seems contradictory. If Pro-Choicers really wanted a person to have the right to do with their body what they please, then they should favor prostitution. They should also favor legalized drug usage (perhaps with tight restrictions). They should not argue that a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants for the nine months of pregnancy, but the man should be forced to support the child with the labor of his body for eighteen years afterward. The fact that most Pro-Lifers also stand in opposition to such thinking in some ways hurts their own argument. If they were willing to advocate such positions, they might be able to show that Pro-Choicers are only interested in a particular set of rights for a particular set of people. Conclusion Abortion has been a very heated argument. It remains so. Those who stand on either side form websites to stop abortion or to favor the protection of rights. Voicing arguments in public often results in hot conversations. Picketing and blocking entrance to clinics prevents patient access to clinic, and marches in public spaces present the other side. Showing facts and statistics on women who terminate is a primary concern on both sides of the debate. Some statistics state that 64% of young women 18-34 get repeat abortions. Some women are pressured to get one by spouses or family. This is worse in minority communities, as 36% of black pregnancies are terminated. I agree with giving women a choice of what to do with their bodies. I also believe in adoption. In that duality I believe I am like most people. Most people want abortion to be safe and rare. There are many women who can’t conceive or carry a baby to term and wish to be a mother. Adoption is an answer. There are other women who do not want a child, for career reasons, family reasons, or they are simply not ready. For them, abortion is a solution. Both of these groups want rights. The Pro-Choice position demands rights to make your own choices and the Pro-Life position argues for a right to life. I understand the positions of both groups. I have mixed feelings, as do most Americans. Viewing the statistics that Pro-life groups write on their websites can only lead one to have sympathy for the rights of children, while Pro-Choice advocates make a very strong argument regarding the primacy of an inviolable right to one’s body. Statistics do not tell the whole story, however. Why do some women abort? It could be for medical reasons (baby or mother), indigence, rape or incest. Mahler vs. Roe 4320.5.464 (1979) is an example of a case that was determined not by a frivolous choice but by social circumstances experienced by the mother. Sometime birth control methods fail when you are unmarried. I know from personal experiences what unwanted pregnancy can result in, having had a friend in high school who was raped by a friend. Her parents made her have the baby and they put it up for adoption. She went through nine months being reminded that she was violated. To this date, she still feels the shame and blames herself. Life is full of choices and opportunities to embrace. To have a healthy and productive life, allowing abortion may be necessary. One must decide for oneself, however. To do this, search your soul. Ask yourself, what would be right for me and my family psychologically and physically. Read information objectively and look at pros and cons before making a decision that can change our life (e.g., www.steadyhealth.com and www.christian answers.net). Then ask yourself: Would you want the government making that decision for you? References American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org) Kant”s Critique of Pure reason. (Catholic 2008) Mossler (2010) A Introduction to Logic..San Diego,CA:Bridgepoint Education Inc.(http://content.ashford.edu) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979 retrieved from http://www.answerbag.com/9- view / 1140498 www.wrtl.org/e-voice http://wrtl.org/abortion/personal stories.aspx Read More