Should Abortion be Legalized - Report Example

Should Abortion be Legalized? Background The of legal abortion has lead to a nationwide, oftenemotion-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 presents the ‘right-to-life’ opinion regarding the abortion issue then follows with the ‘pro-choice’ argument from an ethical, moral and legal aspect. The arguments for and against are significant in a social context yet inconsequential because they will not decide whether or not abortions remain safe and lawful. (National Right to Life Foundation, n.d.).  The Social Controversy Pro 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 but a poor woman must resort to less safe options. Prohibiting abortions does not and has never stopped them from occurring; it just acts to harm women. Con The life of a human, from the time of conception, should be considered equally as viable as any individual. Consequently, the right of life as well as the social definition regarding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ types of deaths should apply to potential lives which can be described as possessing a future value of life, the same as any living person. Unnatural, premature deaths that are considered justifiable by society include those that occur during war-time in addition to those that result from ‘mercy killings’ and the death penalty. Outside of these instances, society generally acts to protect all life even animals that have at least a chance of future potential. This is demonstrated by the life-saving techniques employed without question or hesitation in the case of people who wanted to end their life. Society will not allow it because it is simply wrong by any standard to end a life with potential. ‘Pro Choice’ advocates counter this seemingly universal truth by saying just because a person has great potential doesn’t mean that they will achieve greatness in life therefore a potential life is not yet a life. They also argue that because a fetus is unconscious disqualifies it for being considered a person. Of course, emergency medical treatment is administered to unconscious people in an effort to save their life. Moral Perspective Abortion opponents adopt the deontologist point of view on this and many other subjects. They believe they are on the right side of this issue and are not concerned with arguments of liberty and choice. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, according to opponents, 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. Proponents of choice lean more toward the natural law ethical system. The Roe v. Wade case, brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, 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 (“Roe v. Wade”, 1997: 312). Though the case was then and remains today controversial, the Court’s decision was correct from a constitutional context. Critics of the decision have generally made arguments based on personal moral beliefs which are irrelevant when the language of the Constitution is examined. Their moral arguments against the Roe decision can be quickly invalidated by weighing the precedents of constitutional decisions reached by the Supreme Court in addition to reading the specific wordage contained in the Constitution. 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. 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). Special interest groups include the religious on the ‘pro-life’ side. The majority of society, regardless of special interest status is decidedly pro-choice. The religious generally believe that the Founding Fathers of the nation intended to shape not only the legal but the moral direction of American society as well when they drafted the Constitution, the document that defines the laws of the nation. If they were alive today, according to the ‘religious right,’ the Founders clearly would be against the killing of innocent victims for reasons of convenience. This clearly is an oversimplification of the issue much as their arguments for religion itself. The Social Policy Decision on This Issue Those that criticize the Roe decision have complained that the nation’s founders used general terms to frame the Constitution and did not intend for the ambiguous use of the word ‘rights’ to include the right to an abortion. They further propose that those who ratified the Constitution were ‘God fearing’ men who would have opposed the practice. Even if this argument could be proved valid on a constitutional basis, the inference that the Founders were wholly opposed to the practice is probably inaccurate. The Founders were men of the enlightenment period and were supporters of natural law. Levels of Decision-making The pro-lifers do not include science or the laws of society in their biased argument against abortive rights. It is based purely on personal morality standards which are viewed by many as questionable. This is supported by the majority opinion that 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. Methods of Decision-making The ideological divide will never be bridged but the debate whether abortion should be legal or not is a matter for the courts, as are all legal matters. Roe v. Wade was and is a case that brings out emotions on both a moral and legal basis. The Supreme Court’s decision cannot be called a mistake like the critics call it unless those critics are willing to totally ignore legal procedure and the words of the Constitution itself. 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. Outline: I. Background II. The Social Controversy A. Pro B. Con III. Moral Perspective IV. The Social Policy Decision on This Issue V. Levels of Decision-making VI. Methods of Decision-making References Beach, W. (1988). Christian Ethics in the Protestant Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Dorf, Michael D. (January 23, 2003). “Was Roe v. Wade Rightly Decided? Will it be Overruled?” CNN Law Center. Available March 16, 2009 from National Right to Life Foundation. (n.d.). “Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth.” National Right to Life. Available March 16, 2009 from “Roe v. Wade: 1973.” (1997). Women’s Rights on Trial. 1st Ed. New York: Thompson Gale. Read More