Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

la petite moi · 04-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Alright, folks, here's my opinion:

According to Auriana Ojeda, book editor of Should Abortion be Restricted?, “Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American society and politics today”(6). The argument of whether abortion should be allowed or restricted has lead to many passionate debates among governments, religious organizations, and political advocates. By believing that abortion should be legal, a “pro-choicer” advocates a woman’s right to her own body and the right to choose. Also, by keeping abortions legal, women will have the opportunity to have a medically safe abortion in clean surroundings. If restricted, which “pro-lifers” (also called “anti-pro-choicers”) support, young women and teenage girls will have back-alley operations done, leading to illness and death. If abortions are kept legal, as dictated in Roe v. Wade, women will be able to achieve much more, control their own reproductive lives, and fulfill basic personal goals without being hindered by unwanted pregnancies.

The path to women’s right to choose has not been an easy one. Although legal until the mid-1850’s, abortion laws banning abortion after the first fourth months of pregnancy began to emerge by the 1820’s. By the turn of the century, every state had restricted abortion. Soon women were risking their lives to have illegal and highly dangerous back-alley abortions. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in the 1930’s, approximately 800,000 illegal abortions were being performed each year, leading to 8,000-17,000 deaths annually. Early reformers saw these extreme risks of keeping abortion illegal, and pushed for legalization. Finally, between 1967 and 1971, during the push for women’s rights, 17 states legalized abortions. Also, according to the ACLU, “In 1968, only 15 percent of Americans favored legal abortions; by 1972, 64 percent did” (Ojeda 62). This shift in public opinion led to the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade most existing states’ abortion bans.

The final decision of Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th amendment, the constitutional right to individual privacy. This amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” (U.S. Constitution…). Liberty is the right to choose how one ultimately lives out his or her life and thus, the Court found this right “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Ojeda 62). The Court upheld that the state could not interfere with a woman’s rights to abortion, unless there was a convincing cause for regulation. A compelling reason in protecting the possible life of a fetus could only be declared once it became “viable,” typically at the beginning of the third trimester of a pregnancy. Thereafter, abortion was also allowed for certain health reasons (birth risks for the mother, extreme deformities, and genetic abnormalities, etcetera). As the Supreme Court later restated in 1992, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Ojeda 62). By legalizing abortions, women were given the right to manage their own reproduction.

In 1992, the Supreme Court was faced with another legal debate concerning reproductive choice in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court protected the constitutional right for a woman’s individual choice, and proclaimed that under the “undue burden test,” state regulations cannot put “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” (Abortion Timeline). U.S. Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter supported the individual rights of women by asserting, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence…and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State” (Ojeda 44). When women have the individual right to their own bodies, they are also given the right to lead a better life.

When allowed the choice of abortion, women are able to prevent irreversibly ruining their lives. Not all pregnant women are able to adequately care for a child. Some suffer from mental and physical problems that disable them from managing a very active baby. Still others are deep in financial debt, unable to provide the huge expenses of a child. What’s more is that in high-visibility jobs (like waitressing), women are often forced to quit their job once their pregnancies becomes noticeable. Very few women are paid full wages when on maternity leave, and rarely are their jobs held open for them. After becoming pregnant, women may discover that they have been demoted to a lower-status “mommy track” jobs (Currie 42).

If forced to give birth, a mother may not have only ruined her life, but her child’s as well. In one study, 41 percent of women deprived of abortions regretted giving birth, and a third of those surveyed “harbored anger and resentment against these unwanted children” (Currie 39). If women are not allowed the choice to have an abortion, they will not only be dramatically affected mentally, but physically as well. Additionally, without the right to an abortion, women will affect not just themselves but many others.

When abortion was made completely illegal by the early 1900’s, it did not stop women from finding other means to get rid of their pregnancy. During these times, illegal clinics were run by inexperienced doctors and other unlicensed practitioners with no true concern for their patient. One story by Susan X, describes Doctor Harvey Lothringer, who performed an illegal and brutal abortion on her when she was only 18 years old. She illustrates a picture of absolute horror, explaining how the doctor charged her a large sum of 400 dollars, would not allow her boyfriend stay with her while she was paralyzed with fear, scraped the lining of her uterus so much that she was later unable to menstruate for a year, and then used a German Shepherd to “dispose of the evidence” (Lest we…). This doctor later served four years in prison, when, after a 19-year-old girl died during an illegal abortion he performed, he dismembered her body and flushed it into the sewer system. Furthermore, women would resort to using knitting needles or hangers as abortion instruments. Other lawful doctors had to treat these maimed women when an illegitimate abortionist caused extreme damage to her body. There are countless cases of doctors that could do nothing for women after they were infected with gas gangrene, septic shock, kidney failure, and a variety of other fatal diseases during an illegal abortion.

It is obvious through these stories and the death toll of illegal abortions that if restricted, women will not just stop having abortions. As commentator Anna Quindlen writes, “It is a great mistake to believe that if abortion is illegal, it will be non-existent” (Currie 37). That is why it is essential that women have the right to their own bodies. If abortion is criminalized, the reality is that women will just once again turn to uncertified butchers. If regulated, the death toll of abortions will dramatically fall because the environment in which to get an abortion will be safe, sanitary, and much less painful—mentally and physically.

An argument that many pro-lifers bring up is that killing a fetus that could potentially be a baby is murder. The key point in this is that the fetus is a potential human being, not actually a human being. Although a newborn baby can feel pain, as seen through observations, there is practically no real evidence that a fetus can feel pain. Pro-lifers typically translate simple bodily reflexes as pain; however, as Stephen Currie writes, “The synapses are not yet well developed enough to permit the feeling of pain as a true human would experience it” (24). Most importantly in this argument is that almost nine out of ten abortions are performed in the first few weeks after conception, when really the fetus is an embryo, only a two inch long ball of cells that hardly resembles a newborn at all.

Pro-lifers contend that a fetus could have been born and then grown up to be the next Einstein; however, it should be noted that the fetus could have also grown up to be the next Adolf Hitler. As stated by the webmaster of ‘I’m Not Sorry.net,’ “The potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.” In fact, evil is more probable than good in unwanted pregnancies, because the children may grow up in a household full of discord and resent.

In addition, pro-lifers are particularly fond of quoting the Bible in order to back the notion that abortion is murder; however, these biblical references are far from convincing. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but it does not prohibit it. In fact, if any evidence can be drawn from the Bible it would imply that abortion is not at all like murder. An example of this is in Exodus 21, where a man is sentenced to death for killing a woman; however, if he hits a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarriage, he is only fined. Such a light punishment is contradictory to the belief that aborting a fetus is murder (Currie 28).

Not only does the Bible illustrate how murder and abortion should not be viewed in the same light, but so do other manuscripts of other mainstream religions. In the Talmud, a Jewish script based on the Old Testament of the Bible, it is stated that “the fetus is as the thigh of its mother”; that is, it is only a part of her body. Although cautioning against having abortions on a whim, many American Jewish leaders concur that abortion and murder are simply not the same thing. As a Catholic theologian visiting an abortion clinic reports, “I have held babies in my hands, and now I held this embryo. I know the difference” (Currie 26). In fact, as a universal rule, even present laws in the United States do not identify a fetus as a “person,” and murder is defined as killing someone already born. Hence, the pro-lifer’s argument against abortion because it is murder is moot.

Although some may be opposed to the idea, a woman must be at liberty to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. If a woman is not given the freedom of choosing to have an abortion, essentially her body is not hers anymore but instead the government’s and an unborn mass of cells called a fetus. As author Roger L. Shinn asserts, for a woman “to be forced to give birth to a child, against her will, is an overwhelming violation of her freedom” (Currie 40). Moreover, if denied access to medically sound abortions, a woman will instead only be forced to relinquish herself to an unreliable illegal abortionist. All of the achievements women have accomplished over the last century concerning reproductive rights will have been in vain if abortion is made illegal again.

---
Works Cited
“Abortion Timeline.” The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle Online. Accessed 12 March 2005 <http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1999/100499/N7.Griswold.html>.
Currie, Stephen. Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.
“I’m Not Sorry.net: Celebrating the Right to Choose FAQ.” 2003-2005. Accessed 15 February 2005 <http://www.imnotsorry.net/FAQ.htm>.
“Lest we Forget…” Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, Inc. Accessed 17 February 2005 <http://www.wcla.org/articles/lest.html>.
Ojeda, Auriana, ed. Should Abortion Rights be Restricted? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2003.
“US Constitution: XIV Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. 1999. Accessed 13 March 2005 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html>.
---

04-25-2006, 05:27 PM	#87 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	Alright, folks, here's my opinion: According to Auriana Ojeda, book editor of Should Abortion be Restricted?, “Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American society and politics today”(6). The argument of whether abortion should be allowed or restricted has lead to many passionate debates among governments, religious organizations, and political advocates. By believing that abortion should be legal, a “pro-choicer” advocates a woman’s right to her own body and the right to choose. Also, by keeping abortions legal, women will have the opportunity to have a medically safe abortion in clean surroundings. If restricted, which “pro-lifers” (also called “anti-pro-choicers”) support, young women and teenage girls will have back-alley operations done, leading to illness and death. If abortions are kept legal, as dictated in Roe v. Wade, women will be able to achieve much more, control their own reproductive lives, and fulfill basic personal goals without being hindered by unwanted pregnancies. The path to women’s right to choose has not been an easy one. Although legal until the mid-1850’s, abortion laws banning abortion after the first fourth months of pregnancy began to emerge by the 1820’s. By the turn of the century, every state had restricted abortion. Soon women were risking their lives to have illegal and highly dangerous back-alley abortions. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in the 1930’s, approximately 800,000 illegal abortions were being performed each year, leading to 8,000-17,000 deaths annually. Early reformers saw these extreme risks of keeping abortion illegal, and pushed for legalization. Finally, between 1967 and 1971, during the push for women’s rights, 17 states legalized abortions. Also, according to the ACLU, “In 1968, only 15 percent of Americans favored legal abortions; by 1972, 64 percent did” (Ojeda 62). This shift in public opinion led to the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade most existing states’ abortion bans. The final decision of Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th amendment, the constitutional right to individual privacy. This amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” (U.S. Constitution…). Liberty is the right to choose how one ultimately lives out his or her life and thus, the Court found this right “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Ojeda 62). The Court upheld that the state could not interfere with a woman’s rights to abortion, unless there was a convincing cause for regulation. A compelling reason in protecting the possible life of a fetus could only be declared once it became “viable,” typically at the beginning of the third trimester of a pregnancy. Thereafter, abortion was also allowed for certain health reasons (birth risks for the mother, extreme deformities, and genetic abnormalities, etcetera). As the Supreme Court later restated in 1992, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Ojeda 62). By legalizing abortions, women were given the right to manage their own reproduction. In 1992, the Supreme Court was faced with another legal debate concerning reproductive choice in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court protected the constitutional right for a woman’s individual choice, and proclaimed that under the “undue burden test,” state regulations cannot put “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” (Abortion Timeline). U.S. Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter supported the individual rights of women by asserting, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence…and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State” (Ojeda 44). When women have the individual right to their own bodies, they are also given the right to lead a better life. When allowed the choice of abortion, women are able to prevent irreversibly ruining their lives. Not all pregnant women are able to adequately care for a child. Some suffer from mental and physical problems that disable them from managing a very active baby. Still others are deep in financial debt, unable to provide the huge expenses of a child. What’s more is that in high-visibility jobs (like waitressing), women are often forced to quit their job once their pregnancies becomes noticeable. Very few women are paid full wages when on maternity leave, and rarely are their jobs held open for them. After becoming pregnant, women may discover that they have been demoted to a lower-status “mommy track” jobs (Currie 42). If forced to give birth, a mother may not have only ruined her life, but her child’s as well. In one study, 41 percent of women deprived of abortions regretted giving birth, and a third of those surveyed “harbored anger and resentment against these unwanted children” (Currie 39). If women are not allowed the choice to have an abortion, they will not only be dramatically affected mentally, but physically as well. Additionally, without the right to an abortion, women will affect not just themselves but many others. When abortion was made completely illegal by the early 1900’s, it did not stop women from finding other means to get rid of their pregnancy. During these times, illegal clinics were run by inexperienced doctors and other unlicensed practitioners with no true concern for their patient. One story by Susan X, describes Doctor Harvey Lothringer, who performed an illegal and brutal abortion on her when she was only 18 years old. She illustrates a picture of absolute horror, explaining how the doctor charged her a large sum of 400 dollars, would not allow her boyfriend stay with her while she was paralyzed with fear, scraped the lining of her uterus so much that she was later unable to menstruate for a year, and then used a German Shepherd to “dispose of the evidence” (Lest we…). This doctor later served four years in prison, when, after a 19-year-old girl died during an illegal abortion he performed, he dismembered her body and flushed it into the sewer system. Furthermore, women would resort to using knitting needles or hangers as abortion instruments. Other lawful doctors had to treat these maimed women when an illegitimate abortionist caused extreme damage to her body. There are countless cases of doctors that could do nothing for women after they were infected with gas gangrene, septic shock, kidney failure, and a variety of other fatal diseases during an illegal abortion. It is obvious through these stories and the death toll of illegal abortions that if restricted, women will not just stop having abortions. As commentator Anna Quindlen writes, “It is a great mistake to believe that if abortion is illegal, it will be non-existent” (Currie 37). That is why it is essential that women have the right to their own bodies. If abortion is criminalized, the reality is that women will just once again turn to uncertified butchers. If regulated, the death toll of abortions will dramatically fall because the environment in which to get an abortion will be safe, sanitary, and much less painful—mentally and physically. An argument that many pro-lifers bring up is that killing a fetus that could potentially be a baby is murder. The key point in this is that the fetus is a potential human being, not actually a human being. Although a newborn baby can feel pain, as seen through observations, there is practically no real evidence that a fetus can feel pain. Pro-lifers typically translate simple bodily reflexes as pain; however, as Stephen Currie writes, “The synapses are not yet well developed enough to permit the feeling of pain as a true human would experience it” (24). Most importantly in this argument is that almost nine out of ten abortions are performed in the first few weeks after conception, when really the fetus is an embryo, only a two inch long ball of cells that hardly resembles a newborn at all. Pro-lifers contend that a fetus could have been born and then grown up to be the next Einstein; however, it should be noted that the fetus could have also grown up to be the next Adolf Hitler. As stated by the webmaster of ‘I’m Not Sorry.net,’ “The potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.” In fact, evil is more probable than good in unwanted pregnancies, because the children may grow up in a household full of discord and resent. In addition, pro-lifers are particularly fond of quoting the Bible in order to back the notion that abortion is murder; however, these biblical references are far from convincing. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but it does not prohibit it. In fact, if any evidence can be drawn from the Bible it would imply that abortion is not at all like murder. An example of this is in Exodus 21, where a man is sentenced to death for killing a woman; however, if he hits a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarriage, he is only fined. Such a light punishment is contradictory to the belief that aborting a fetus is murder (Currie 28). Not only does the Bible illustrate how murder and abortion should not be viewed in the same light, but so do other manuscripts of other mainstream religions. In the Talmud, a Jewish script based on the Old Testament of the Bible, it is stated that “the fetus is as the thigh of its mother”; that is, it is only a part of her body. Although cautioning against having abortions on a whim, many American Jewish leaders concur that abortion and murder are simply not the same thing. As a Catholic theologian visiting an abortion clinic reports, “I have held babies in my hands, and now I held this embryo. I know the difference” (Currie 26). In fact, as a universal rule, even present laws in the United States do not identify a fetus as a “person,” and murder is defined as killing someone already born. Hence, the pro-lifer’s argument against abortion because it is murder is moot. Although some may be opposed to the idea, a woman must be at liberty to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. If a woman is not given the freedom of choosing to have an abortion, essentially her body is not hers anymore but instead the government’s and an unborn mass of cells called a fetus. As author Roger L. Shinn asserts, for a woman “to be forced to give birth to a child, against her will, is an overwhelming violation of her freedom” (Currie 40). Moreover, if denied access to medically sound abortions, a woman will instead only be forced to relinquish herself to an unreliable illegal abortionist. All of the achievements women have accomplished over the last century concerning reproductive rights will have been in vain if abortion is made illegal again. --- Works Cited “Abortion Timeline.” The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle Online. Accessed 12 March 2005 <http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1999/100499/N7.Griswold.html>. Currie, Stephen. Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000. “I’m Not Sorry.net: Celebrating the Right to Choose FAQ.” 2003-2005. Accessed 15 February 2005 <http://www.imnotsorry.net/FAQ.htm>. “Lest we Forget…” Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, Inc. Accessed 17 February 2005 <http://www.wcla.org/articles/lest.html>. Ojeda, Auriana, ed. Should Abortion Rights be Restricted? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2003. “US Constitution: XIV Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. 1999. Accessed 13 March 2005 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html>. --- Last edited by la petite moi; 04-25-2006 at 05:34 PM..