Auguments about Abortion
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues around, and is an issue that will never beagreed upon. By bringing morals into the question of whether it should be legal to haveabortions, this issue has been elevated to a higher level. By some people, it is no longerlooked at as a question of choice but as a question of morality, and these concepts have ledto a full-blown debate over something that really should not be questioned.
Every women in America has the right to decide what to do with their bodies. No government or group of people should feel that they have the right to dictate to a personwhat path their lives should take. People who say that they are "pro-life" are in effect nomore than "anti-choice". These pro-lifers want to put the life and future of a women intothe hands of the government. Abortion, and the choice a women may make, is a veryprivate thing and should not be open to debate. The question of morality should not evencome into play when considering abortion, because in this case the question is not of morality but of choice and constitutionality.
The ninth amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This in turn, isguaranteeing a women the right to have an abortion. Pro-choice people say that abortion isthe killing of a child, but pro-choice people do not consider the fetus a child. Aphilosopher, Mary Anne Warren, proposed that consciousness, reasoning, self-motivatedactivity, and self awareness are factors that determine 'person-hood'.
But, a misconception that held is that people who are pro-choice are actually pro-abortion. Many people that support the right of a women to decide what to do with herown body may be personally against abortions. But, that does not mean that they think thegovernment should be able to pass laws governing what females do with their bodies. Pro-choice people simply believe that it is the right of a women to assess her situation anddecide if a baby would be either beneficial or deleterious to her present life.
People that are against abortions do not take many things into consideration. Onething they do not consider is how the life of a teenager may be ruined if they are not giventhe option of abortion. Another thing not considered is the serious family strife that willresult if a baby is forced to be born. Pro-lifers are adamant about their beliefs and thinkthat they have an answer to every situation. Pregnant? Try adoption. Pregnant? Theywill help you support the baby. What ever the women's situation may be, pro-lifers will notchange their stand.
Many people that are pro-life suggest adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. But, in reality, this is not a good answer. The fact is is that the majority of people lookingto adopt are middle class white couples. Another fact is is that most of the babies given upfor adoption (or that are aborted) are of a mixed race. And, the truth is, is that most of theadopters do not want these type of children. This is a sad fact, but is true. Why elsewould adopting couples be placed on a waiting list for a few years when there are so manyother kinds of babies out there. Would these pro-lifers rather see these children grow up as wards of the state, living a life of sorrow and misery?
Pro-lifers are fighting for laws that will make abortion illegal. Do they really thinkthat this will stop abortions? The only thing a law against abortions will accomplish will be to drive pregnant women to seek help in dark alleys and unsafe situations, resulting notonly in the termination of the pregnancy, but perhaps their own lives as well. In the 1940'swhen abortion was illegal, there were still many cases of women seeking help elsewhere. The only difference though, is that these women usually ended up dead because ofhemorrhaging or infection. If a woman wants an abortion, illegal or legal, nothing will stopher. Why would pro-lifers, who supposedly put so much value in life, want to endangerthe live of another person?
It is true that if a law is passed against abortion, it may serve to prevent someabortions. A women may not have enough money for an alley-way abortion and wouldthen have to carry their pregnancy to term. The results of this could be disastrous. First ofall, the mother would be depressed, probably would not get prenatal care, may drink, dodrugs, or any other thing she could do to perhaps harm the life of the baby. And, when the baby finally is born, the mother may hate the baby, knowing that it has ruined her chanceof ever accomplishing her goals in life. If these 'women forced into motherhood' dohappen to keep their child, there is a good chance of child abuse and neglect. Theseunwanted children, raised by the state or unloving parents, would then give birth to anothergeneration of unwanted children. Also, in some desperate situations, new mothers mayhave the idea that since they could not have an abortion they will kill their baby right afterbirth, perhaps with the idea that they would get away with it and be able to start their lifeafresh. When all of these situations are considered by an open-minded person, abortion seems the better of them.
Radical pro-lifers fight for the lives of children and then go and destroy the lives ofabortion doctors. Does this mean that they place more value on the live of a bundle ofcells and tissues than they do on a human being? Contradictions such as these lead manypro-choice people to believe that pro-lifers are close-minded, immovable, radicals.
Pro-lifers may say to all of these arguments that any of these situations would bepreferable to abortion. The important thing, they believe, is that these children will be living. They say that when a women goes to get an abortion the fetus is given no choice. But, in effect, what they really are saying is that the power of choice should be taken awayfrom the mothers, giving the unborn child an opportunity to be brought into a loveless,lonely, and uncaring world.