Abortion ranks among the most controversial issue in today’s media-oriented era. The argument usually centers around two groups; those who believe abortion should never be done and those who believe abortion should be allowed and regulated and that a woman has the right to make choices about her body.
Nearly every day we hear about women go into abortion. Despite rampant campaign of anti-abortion there are still willing to take risk by abortion. Regardless of our personal beliefs, freedom to make decisions regarding our own lives is fundamental. The termination of a pregnancy is a moral, ethical and decision informed by faith for many women. To take that responsibility away from them, to put their individual responsibility to decision making in someone else’s hands, flies in the face of all the ideals this country was founded upon.
Abortion is quintessentially about women. This essay provides convincing view that a woman has the right to make choices about her body. Therefore, people should recognize and consider abortion as a part in our society.
BODY OF THE RESEARCH
Reason 1. Abortion is for women
The word abortion basically associated about women; their wishes, hopes, fears, tragedies, struggles, needs, feelings, knowledge, power, oppression, freedom, constraints, resources, and decision, and the s societies in which they live (Davis and Winikoff, 2007). And of course a key health issue, enabling women to have their abortion as soon as they have made the decision to terminate is profoundly sensible from health-care perspective. Although the biology is universal, the practical implications are not, which is further proof that the best choices for abortion services cannot be made on the basis of medical considerations alone. No drug development for abortion makes sense without remembering the centrality of the experience for women themselves (Davis and Winikoff, 2007).
Abortion should be a women’s choice not the church, not the state, since its women’s bodies,’ women will control their fate. Regarding abortion, one should be aware first that the embryo or fetus is not a human life. The fetus is part of its mother and not a separate entity at that early stage of development. The fetus can be an extremely difficult burden in the life of a pregnant woman; life for an unwanted or severely handicapped child may be tragic. Abortion rights must be based not only on a woman’s right to choose to undergo an abortion, but also on her right to choose to undergo the enormous changes to her body which are wrought by the fetus. Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman’s body and liberty, if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her. The rights of women are greater than those of fetuses, and it is moralistic to suggest women should have exercised their right not to become pregnant before they did so. Forcing unwanted pregnancies is a travesty with grave psychological consequences for both mother and child.
Reason 2. Abortion is a Choice and Consent
Consent is our most basic right and the foundation of all relation-ships in our society and in our legal system. Your right to consent to what is done to your body or liberty composes the legal definition of harm, even if the action undertaken without your consent was a beneficial one. If you need a lifesaving operation for example, and the surgeon proceeds without hammering your consent, that procedure can constitute legal harm. Similarly, parents of minors are obligated to care for their children and yet still have a fight to consent when donations organ or blood from the parent’s body are involved in their offspring’s care. Individual consent in our society and our legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed “wrongful pregnancy.” In civil cases, when a physician incompetently sterilizes a man or woman and pregnancy ensues, a woman can sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if the pregnancy was medically normal, the child is born healthy, and the woman opts to keep the child rather than surrender it for adoption. This is because the pregnancy itself was non-consensual, connoting a serious injury. In criminal proceedings, wrongful pregnancy occurs when conception follows rape or incest. In such cases, the perpetrator receives punishments for the injury of non-consensual pregnancy that are additional to those imposed for the rape or incest itself.
When a fetus affects a woman’s body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive; they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in self-defense. States currently recognize three contexts where deadly force is justified: when one is threatened with death; when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks); and the invasion of one’s liberty, such as in kidnapping, rape, or slavery. Deadly force, of course, is justified to stop the fetus from threatening a woman with death. But deadly force is also justified to stop the fetus from imposing the massive number of changes occurring in even a normal pregnancy, if a woman does not consent to those changes. The fetus also profoundly affects a woman’s liberty when she is pregnant, so that without consent, pregnancy is similar to kidnapping or enslavement. A pregnant woman, after all, is forced to be with the fetus at all times and be responsible for it, yet she cannot control its actions on her body.
Reason 3. Abortion is a Rights
Abortion rights are currently based on the due process right of choice, or privacy, which is the right to control your body without interference from the State. Unfortunately, the right of choice generally does not obligate the government to provide funds for the woman to exercise that right (just as the fight to choose who to marry does not obligate the government to pay for your wedding). However, if abortion is approached not as a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, but as her right to consent to the way the fetus, as a state-protected entity, affects her body, then new constitutional issues are raised. The termination of a pregnancy is a moral, ethical and decision informed by faith for many women. To take that responsibility away from them, to put their individual responsibility to decision making in someone else’s hands, flies in the face of all the ideals this country was founded upon. There are more than 40 health care and civil rights organizations in supporting “The Reproductive Privacy Act.” Our Creator God has given us all individual responsibilities to make private decisions and inalienable rights we should be free to exercise.
NO to Abortion
If there are people who believe that abortion should be allowed and regulated and that a woman has the right to make choices about her body, there are also those people who believe that abortion should never be done. These people presented factors why abortion should never be done, they said that; the embryo or fetus is a human life and abortion is morally wrong because it takes a human life; to be valid, law must be derived from sound principles such as respect for human life; taking an unborn life is an immoral act because the unborn is innocent and no combination of tragic circumstances or foreseeable post-birth situations can negate this fact; a fetus is not a part of its mother; instead, it is a separate entity with rights of its own; the right of the unborn to life takes precedence over the right of a woman to control her body; and Abortion is morally wrong and the law should follow morality (Flynn, 2000).
Many groups opposed to abortion rights sought to increase support for their cause by broadening their arguments for abortion restrictions. Instead of presenting the abortion issue as primarily a conflict between the pregnant woman’s interest in self-determination and the state’s interest in protecting developing human life, they began speaking of abortion as a treat to both women and their potential children. Certain restrictions were justified, they said, by the need to protect women from harmful choices to end their pregnancies (Siegel, 2007).
Also, religious leaders continue to dismiss and lobby against this view. Rev. Al Miller (who heads the non-denominational Whole Life Ministries, and Roman Catholic rector at Holy Trinity Cathedral) once said that “Abortion is all absolute rubbish, it may be her body but the life is not hers. She did not give life. When it comes to life, God gives life so the woman does not have that right.”
The declaration that a woman has the right to control her own body is a definite statement of her proprietorship as a person, and the ‘right to choose’ an expression of her free will.
Abortion is a right and no one should mess with a person’s rights. The woman should have a choice (and) should be able to do this in a properly equipped facility and with people who are trained to do it. All women who have experienced an abortion deserve support and respect from everybody. Further, accepting abortions will not only lead Infanticide to reduce but also death through backstreet abortion will drastically decrease and women’s lives will be saved. Thus, abortion is a help in the society as a whole.
Davis, A.R. and Winikoff, B., “Abortion is for women” The Lancet; New York, USA. pg. 1904, 2007.
Flynn, E.P. “Issues in Health Care Ethics,” 1ePerson Education Company, 2000.
Siegel, R.B.,The New Politics of Abortion: An Equality Analysis of Woman-Protective Abortion Restrictions,” University of Illinois Law Review: 991-1053, 2007.