Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice Arguments - Essay Example

Legal Abortion 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 concerned with the life of a child; the other, 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 argued 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 but everyone should know both sides on equal terms so as to make the decision that is right for them. This paper will first present the ‘right-to-life’ then follow with the ‘pro-choice’ argument. Pro-Life The right to choose is the foundation upon which this country was built. Those who are pro-abortion trumpet this slogan while proclaiming a woman’s ‘God given right’ to make her own choices without government interference. This simple ideology is embraced by some but the arguments are flawed when the realities of abortion are examined. Studies have shown that most women are coerced into committing this murderous act of a living human and that there is no such thing as safe abortions as many are led to believe. Pro-abortion proponents generally espouse that the rights of a non-living tissue that feels no pain are non-existent. This discussion exposes these untruths that have been reported and are widely perceived as facts. It also explains the framers’ intent for the legal and moral direction of American society when they drafted the Constitution, the document that defines the laws of the nation. There is little freedom of choice for women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. 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. “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 many cases, is unwanted by the woman, not the baby. 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. “In 95 percent of all cases the male partner played a central role in the decision” (Zimmerman, 1977). This and other studies have illustrated clearly that most women decide against their own conscience. Legal abortion enables fathers to force their will on mothers. Some women resort to abortion in desperation because they fear continued abuse. That fear is substantiated as women who refuse to abort have been subjected to serious abuses which have escalated to murder if the women still persists in her refusal. Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and for what other motive could there be? “Sixty-four percent of women surveyed report being pressured by others into unwanted abortions” (Reardon, 1992).   Immediately following an abortion, the one(s) coercing the decision are relieved and seldom, if ever, give the inconvenient issue another thought. Women, on the other hand, suffer long afterwards, racked by overwhelming guilt and agonizing over their irreversible decision. This pain may last a lifetime as they are never able to forgive themselves (Elliot Institute, n.d.). Another myth espoused as fact is that the aborted fetus is no more than a cluster of cells, a bit of tissue unable to even feel pain. A developing embryo has a unique set of fingerprints as well as different genetic patterns than its mother. It is a human being unto itself. If one defines death as the stoppage of a heartbeat and murder as the forceful and intentional stopping of a heart then abortion is surely murder. If the existence of a heartbeat legally defined life, then almost all abortions would be illegal as the heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. A British medical journal reported that when a pin is stuck into an eight-week-old fetus, it opens his mouth in a crying motion and pulls his hand away. By week five, eyes, legs, and hands begin 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.).  ‘Pro Choice’ activists argue that women should have access to safe abortions, that ‘a nation founded on and dedicated to civil liberties could allow its citizens to resort to dangerous self-abortion procedures.’ That too is a false premise. Ninety-seven percent of women who have had abortions describe intense pain experienced during the procedure despite the use of local anesthetics. “Compared to other pains, researchers have rated the pain from abortion as more painful than a bone fracture, about the same as cancer pain, though not as painful as an amputation.” (Bulanger, Melzak & Lauzon, 1989). Studies also show that patients typically found abortion more painful than their doctors or counselors told them to expect and that younger women tend to have a more painful experience than older women. “Complications are common such as bleeding, hemorrhage, laceration of the cervix, menstrual disturbance, inflammation of the reproductive organs, bladder or bowel perforation, and serious infection” (Danforth, 1986). Overall, women who have abortions increase their risk of future miscarriages and sterility. Humiliated, scared and ashamed, a mother to be must, generally, go to a clinic, not a familiar doctor for the most traumatic experience of her young life. Women can suffer long term physical as well as psychological complications from an abortion procedure. Various studies through the years have proven that abortion is a horrendous option for all concerned yet the ‘right to choose’ still exists because the Supreme Court has stated it cannot determine for certain when life begins. We have been at a 30-plus year impasse since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 which legalized abortion in the U.S because the court system is unclear regarding when human life begins. The ‘Roe’ 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. It also restricted abortions during the second-trimester unless a woman’s health was in jeopardy (“Roe v. Wade”, 1997: 312). The Constitution does not directly address the issue but simply because the word ‘abortion’ does not appear, the Constitution is still the origin for legal precedence for this issue. The liberal interpretation of the Constitution in this matter (7-2 in favor) is at the heart of the legal issue. Because the Supreme Court has become more conservative in terms of overall ideology since 1973, many believe that soon this interpretation will closer resemble Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion regarding 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). There are those that argue that if the courts cannot decide when life begins and because the Roe decision has yet to be overturned even though it was not based on a solid constitutional reasoning, then the Congress, not the courts should decide matters such as this which have weighty moral implications. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence 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. The reality that a few of our Founding Fathers were deists, rather than theists, does not change the fact that these documents were written by and for a generally theistic people. According to John Adams, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Beach 1988).  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.” We are, of course, free to practice our own religious beliefs, but our present society has become obsessed with the idea of tolerance. Everything is to be tolerated – with the exception of Christianity. Pro-choice Two questions arise when debating whether the Constitution legally protects a woman’s right to have an abortion performed. The first involves reasoning whether the fundamental interests of women are affected by the restricting of abortion. The other inquires if laws preventing legal abortions are justified even if the Constitution does in fact address this issue. Answering the first question is rather simple. Courts regularly hear cases so as to decide whether or not the rights of an individual are protected by the Constitution. If courts are engaged in recognizing if the fundamental rights of individuals are protected, then the personal interest of a woman being forced by the government to have an unwanted child certainly applies. Recognizing that courts do indeed 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 this egregious 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” (“Fourteenth Amendment”, 2006), indicating that the protections under the Constitution refer only to persons who are ‘born.’ 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 terminate a pregnancy. 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 although those of religious conviction argue 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). Criticizing the Roe decision purely on moral grounds is easy but the difficulty lies in offering an alternative that is not subjective and clear enough to be enforceable. Though the constitutionality regarding the Roe decision can be easily 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 even on legal grounds though that is seldom the arena for debate. It is understood, however, that the majority of Americans do agree with the Court’s decision and believe it to be a fundamental right (Dorf, 2003). Conclusion Both sides of the abortion issue contain legal, ethical and social considerations that provoke great emotions as this paper has shown. 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. Works Cited Beach, W. Christian Ethics in the Protestant Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988. Bulanger, Eliane; Melzak, Ronald & Lauzon, Pierre. “Pain of First-Trimester Abortion: A Study of Psychosocial and Medical Predictors.” Pain. Vol. 36, (1989), pp. 343, 345. Danforth, David N. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 5th Ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lipincott, (1986), pp. 217, 257, 382-83. Dorf, Michael D. “Was Roe v. Wade Rightly Decided? Will it be Overruled?” CNN Law Center. (January 23, 2003). April 28, 2011 Elliot Institute. “Forced Abortions in America.” After Abortion. Springfield, IL. (n.d.). April 28, 2011 National Right to Life Foundation. “Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth.” National Right to Life. (n.d.). April 28, 2011 Pavone, Frank. “Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent.” The Conservative Voice. (June 19, 2005). April 28, 2011 Reardon, David C. Aborted Women, Silent No More. Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2002, pp. 11-21. “Roe v. Wade: 1973.” Women’s Rights on Trial. 1st Ed. New York: Thompson Gale, 1997. Zimmerman, Mary K. Passage Through Abortion. New York: Prager Publishers, 1977. “United States Constitution Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. (2006). April 28, 2011 “United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.” Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. (2006). April 28, 2011 Read More