|
Abortion, in its most common ways of usage, refers to the voluntary
termination of pregnancy, generally through the use of surgical
procedures or drugs. There are many points of view on this subject,
some religious, and some more scientific.
In approximately
three-fourths of America, abortion is legal, and there has been a few
cases attempting to outlaw abortion, one of which is the Roe verses
Wade case. Roe argued that making a woman carry a baby against her will
is a govermental intrusion of a person’s rights and will not be made a
law that abortions are illegal. In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision
made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from trained
medical surgeons, that then led to large decreases in pregnancy-related
injury and death.
Now there is a new idea to close abortion clinics.
This proposal takes away the rights of American women that are
guaranteed by our Constitution. By closing abortion clinics, the
government would be not only taking away women’s rights, but is also
punishing the women who want to exercise their right of a pro-choice
woman by giving them no other choice but to have an abortion (if they
want an abortion) in an unsafe and unsanitary enviroment that horribly
threatens the woman’s health.
By closing Abortion Clinics anywhere you
are creating obstacles and enlarging the barriers of getting an
abortion. By creating too many obstacles, you are lessening the chances
a woman will have an abortion, therefore violating her right to
privacy. In 1973 the American Supreme Court stated that Americans’
right to privacy included: "the right of a woman to decide whether to
have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that
decision without state interference". The Constitution states we are
obligated to be able to express a right to privacy, so taking away a
woman’s chances to make decisions about her body violates that right.
“Every day, children’s lives are being terminated. The culprit;
unwanted pregnancies. The main reason people are getting abortions is
because they’re too irresponsible to make sure that they won’t get
pregnant. Say a woman’s at a party, she gets drunk and then pregnant.
Why blame the baby by killing it.” I have one answer to this; the
mothers shouldn’t also be punished because she made a mistake. Who has
the more pain and suffering? This is just like the Euthanasia and
assisted suicide topic. Should one person’s financial, physical, and
emotional suffering be equal to another dying a quick and painless
death, and from a chemical that quckly makes them fall into deathly
slumber? Even if that second human is not able to tell it is being
killed or being alledgedly “hurt” in the first place.
Why should this
human be able to survive if it means the suffering, and in a minor’s
case, the extreme suffering of the mother? This child will be a
parasite on the unwanting mother’s body, and yes, it will be there
without the mother’s acceptance.
Even so, the mother does not have the
physical, emotional, and financial capability of carrying and raising a
child. Correct, it is inhumnae to execute anyone no matter how
painless, but the real argument is if it is right to make the mother
carry the child for 9 months, pay the bills for the child, his/her
education, and so on. Go through an extreme physical change as an
adult, or even worse a minor, through pregnancy.
True the baby is being
killed, but it is not able to tell if it even had life in the first
place. “A baby is a human and it should have the choice to end it’s own
life,” is what you say, then why should a woman be denied of the right
to choose if she wants to carry, give birth, and raise a baby?
Some
women choose to have an abortion because they have to go through child
birth to then put it up for adoption. Babies who get put up for
adoption don’t always get adopted anyway. On average, an adolescent
girl would rather abort an unwanted child than to carry the baby to
full term and then put it into an adoption home. Also financial status
has a part in the equasion. The lack of birth control education,
medical, and family planning resorces are a reason of why more women
of poor socioeconomic standings choose adoption or raising a child over
abortion.
Inversely, women of higher socioeconomic standings choose to
abort their fetus, than to keep it and follow through with child birth.
“A woman should still go through excruciating pain to deliver a child
just for the sake of preservation of life” What would happen if a young
teen (who was still growing) were to get pregnant and was still forced
to go through child birth? Then there is a chance that she will die,
for she is such a young age.
Approximately one million girls under the
age of eighteen will become pregnant in the United States every year. Between 1986 and 1991, the rate of births to young women rose 24% This
increase in birth rate occured in all states throughout this time
period. National surveys have also stated that 85% of births to women
aged fourteen to nineteen are unintended. This proves than many
underaged pregancies are unintended and people apparently do make
mistakes.
I believe a woman should have a choice if she should have to carry a
baby inside of her. If she made a mistake and got pregnant, she won’t
physically, financially, or emotionally be able to go through with
child birth and the parenting process. Should she then have to support
an extra being, regardless of the fact it is her child?
For example,
carrying a baby would be extremely hard for a fifteen year old girl to
go through. The severe lower back pains themselves could seriously
injure her. Because she made this mistake, she is forced, by law to
carry an extra 10 to 15 pounds, have heartburn, morning sickness,
excessive urination (the womb pushes against the bladder and kidneys),
severe lower back pain, and even in some cases, Sciatica (where the
womb pinches the woman’s sciatic nerve and has extreme pain in her
legs). The baby takes away vital nutrients for this young mother to
grow.
I think that “two wrongs do not make a right” is true, but I also
think that there is also another wrong; forcing anyone to carry a baby.
When some men leave after they find out the woman is pregnant, the
women are left to care for this child they had with a man whom it will
never have the chance of seeing. Then is it up to the law to make sure
she will not be able to rid of her coming misery, by forcing her to go
through child birth and support it on her own? Also if a girl is
financially corrupt and barely able to care for herself, she will have
to get a second job and not have any time to see her baby, she will
have to pay for child care while she is working. Many women choose not
to work, and rely on welfare to take care of them both. This baby will
also take up almost all of her time so she will not be able to have a
normal life until she meets a partner in love, or possibly just out of
convenience.
When a woman feels it is absolutley neccecary to get an
abortion, she will get one anyway, and in unsafe and unsanitary
conditions. Even if the law is passed that abortions are clarified as
illegal, obviously women will sitll do it where in so, will harm much
more than the baby’s life, but possibly her own. The “Due Process
Clause” of the fourteenth amendment states that govermental forces
shall not intrude on the peoples’ rights to life, liberty and the
persuit of happiness.
This `liberty' is not a series of isolated
points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of
speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a
rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all
substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and
which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must,
that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.” Poe v. Ullman.
Now,
“liberty’ for such a large nation cannot be focused on specificly the
rights explicitly named in the bill of rights and the constitution, so
therefore “liberty” can also be described as “being free to have a
family whenever you choose”, or “having a baby when you want to” or in
Jane Roe’s words "the right of the individual, married or single, to be
free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so
fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child.” When the baby is still a fetus, or even when the mother
is in the last stages of pregnacy, the child is still very dependant on
the mother. So dependant, that if the mother were to leave it in a
room, the baby would die, therefore she, if anyone, should have a right
to terminate it.
Now, the father of the child could argue that he has a
right to have a say in this action because it was his sperm that
fertilized her egg and that the baby has 50% of his genes in it. He
could argue this point and his facts would be correct, but his ideas
would be wrong. If he and he alone were to be both parts of the
“equasion to make a baby” (man + woman = baby) and he would carry all
of the burden or joy of having, caring for, and putting through a good
education, a child himself, them he and he alone would have rights to
determine what would be of the hypothetical wanted or unwanted
“parasite” inside of him.
If the father is not suitable to have a say
in this, why are people who have no knowing, yet, no relation to the
child, mother, or father doing voting on such an intrusion of privacy
and sensitive issue? If the “child” inside of you does not have the
self awarensess and acknowledgement of your, its, or anyone else’s
life, then the fetus is no longer a person, so aborting it would be as
immoral and alike to a malignant tumor. Especially if the cell is
growing inside of you without your permission and approval, and has the
parasitic consumption and ravaging of vital nutrients to the point
where the mother has to attempt to sustain life by eating more than she
normally would.
Overall I find that abortion is a substantial solution for the
mistake of getting pregnant when resulting in death, injury, or
suffering by the mother. If a mother is physically uncapable of having
a baby, financially uncapapble of raising one and putting him/her
through child care so she can work a second job, or emotionally
uncapable to handle all of the stress that comes with having a child,
then she should be able to end this potential threat to her lifestyle
and everything she does. When mothers put their time and effort into
work to feed the extra being (and herself) she caannot pay for child
care, the cost of living, and the extra money put into keeping the baby
alive so she ends up on welfare. After that she has no need to attempt
to get off until the child has grown up. Also if a girl had a life (a
social and educational one) she cannot perform in her studies and her
parents are left to take care of the baby. If she is older, than it
will be much harder for her to start off feeding an extra being when
she’s getting used to being out on her own and paying for her new
house.
The “Due Process of Law” clause of the fourteenth amendment
protects people’s rights when it comes to domestic matters and surely
the government won’t seize any human’s rights to choose something so
personal as the right to start a family when one wants to, or to choose
when you want or dont want to have a child or not. Also the
socioeconomic standings of a woman result in her decision of whether
she wants to “bear or beget” a child. If she originates from poor
socioeconomic standings, she will be uneducated in the ways of birth
control, medical education, and family planning to know what is the
right thing to do. I strongly believe that a woman should be able to
choose what happens to her and her husband’s cells because she is the
one who has to carry, nurture, raise, and pay her time annd money
towards her baby. You can say her husband has to do most of these
things but he still doesn’t have to go through child birth. In some
cases there is no husband; the baby is the production of a two
irresponsible and underaged teens.
|
|
|
(0 vote)