Sara English
Ms. Melanie Zynel
English 1020
26 November 2012
Abortion
There is no doubt that legality of abortion is an extremely controversial
matter. Disagreement tends to occur in discussions of whether or not abortion is
morally and ethically relevant, along with if it should remain legal or be made
illegal. It is typical for individuals to stand by one specific side when discussing
concerns about ethics. People who consider themselves to be Pro-choice, believe
that abortion should be an option for all women. They feel that these women
should have the right to choose to do what they want with their body regardless of
the circumstances. Those who are Pro-life, generally believe that the human fetus
is a person and has the right to life. Because people are entitled the right to life
these Pro-life advocates believe abortion should be legally prohibited. I propose
that abortion be made illegal with the exception of rare cases, including victims’ of
rape and incest, along with ectopic pregnancies or other uncommon lifethreatening cases. Under any of these circumstances, women should legally have
the right to choose whether or not they will have an abortion. Making abortion
illegal with the exception of some cases is the best solution because a fetus is
indeed a person who is entitled to the human right to life. However, victims of
incest, rape, or women whose pregnancies impose life-threatening risks, should be
legally entitled to decide whether or not to have an abortion because these
conditions contain a violation of the individual’s own rights. These should be the
only occasions that abortion is admissible.
It is not uncommon for people to think that deciding whether or not to have
abortion should be entirely up to the woman, regardless of the circumstances.
Many of the individuals that hold this opinion tend to view the immediate product
of fertilization only as a potential human being or a piece of the tissue within the
mother, rather than as a real existing human being. Numerous experts say this
explanation is in fact a myth. According to Dianne Irving (M.A. Ph.D.), research
shows the following:
“Scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the
immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A
human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible"
human being. It’s an actual human being—with the potential to grow bigger
and develop its capacities (Irving).”
Although the dispute about abortion may seem of concern to only a small group
(women considering or abortion), it should in fact concern anyone who cares
about human rights.
Abortion is currently legal in Michigan with only a few regulations, along
with nearly all states, regulations varying. The problem with abortion being a legal
option for all women regardless of the circumstances or reasons, is that it is
infringing on the unborn child’s right to life. According to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, abortion is “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by,
resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus”. This
definition expresses that abortion is truly the ending of a life. The reason I say this,
is because there is no difference between an embryo, a fetus, an unborn child, and
an adult young or old. Each one of these is in successive forms of human evolution
irrespective of their current stage. In other words, each of them is the same being,
in a different process of growth (Lazar 371). It does not make sense that people
can be punished for the murder of a new born baby, child, adolescent, or adult but
not for an unborn child simply because it has yet to be born and visually perceived
outside the woman’s body as a human.
If an embryo and fetus are actually living humans that deserve the right to
life, why should abortion be permissible in selected instances? This is a question
that Pro-life supporters may speculate. Although this is a reasonable question,
there is a legitimate explanation. In incidents involving women that have been
victims of rape or incest, these individuals were deprived of their rights when
violated against their own will. The women that are victims of these crimes did not
have a choice and were unable to protect themselves from the potential
consequences (pregnancy). This is why these victims should not be responsible for
giving birth to a child that was produced as a result of such a heinous crime. These
incidents by no means change the fact that an innocent life was created and could
be taken away if the mother chooses to do so. When considering the rights of both
individuals (mother and unborn child), its not fair if a woman deprived of her own
rights, which resulted in pregnancy, should be forced to carry her rapist child for
nine months and give birth to it. Though women should have the right to choose
in crimes including rape or incest, it does not necessarily mean they will choose
abortion. As a matter of fact, according to a major study of pregnant rape victims,
Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent of victims did not have abortions
(Reardon). There are also various studies exhibiting that incest victims as well,
rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion (Reardon). What this displays is that even
after such unpleasant transgressions, unborn children still commonly receive their
right to life by the choice of their mother. Nevertheless, sexually assaulted women
who wish to have an abortion should be legally entitled to make that decision for
themselves.
It is not only important that victims of rape and incest to be allowed by law
to decide whether or not they will choose abortion. It is also crucial that expecting
mothers with life-threatening medical concerns as result of their pregnancy have
the same opportunity. Even the pro-life physicians feel that “when the life of the
mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be
saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim” (Association of ProLife Physicians). One specific circumstance in which abortion should be
permissible is in instances of ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the
newly conceived human being implants on the wall of the fallopian tube or some
other tissue, whereas in ordinary healthy pregnancies it implants on the wall of the
uterus. As the embryo grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood
loss and perhaps death. In such cases, there is no way to save the unborn child’s
life (Wagner 1). Yes, having an abortion results in the death of the child, but it
prevents the death of both individuals. It is not that the child is not a human and
doesn’t have rights, but rather that the death of the child will occur in either
instance. The death is unavoidable, which gives justification for the abortion since
it is used as the prevention of another death, that being the mothers. Women with
life-threatening pregnancies should have the right to legally acquire an abortion
because they are entitled to their own life, which should not have to be sacrificed
in the process of creating a new life.
Women who choose abortion because they have become pregnant as a
result of sexual assault or have life-threatening risks differ greatly from those who
choose abortion as the solution to an accidental pregnancy. Those who willingly
partake in sexual activities are aware of the pregnancy risks involved and accept
those when choose to engage in such behavior with their partner. This is a
complete contradictory to what happens to a victim of rape. A woman that agrees
to have unsafe sex or even to participate in the risky behavior in general should be
responsible for her actions if she becomes pregnant. Not only is the woman to take
responsibility and deal with the consequences, but also the father who contributed
and is just as responsible. The human life that is unintentionally conceived, should
not be deprived of its right to life simply because it was an accident. There are
plenty of options other than abortion for people that cannot financially support a
child or do not want one, such as adoption. With alternative like adoption,
someone who becomes pregnant and does not have the means or desire to raise a
child may take responsibility, carry the child she created, and when it is born place
it with a family that can offer what she cannot. Abortion is not the only way out
and should not be used as contraception after a human life is already produced.
People frequently fail to observe, that in some instances an embryo or fetus
is acknowledged as a person, while in others it is not. On April 1, 2004, George
W. Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Prior to the signing,
the House of Representatives had passed the bill in February 2004, by a vote of
254 to 163; and in March, the Senate approved it with a 61 to 38 vote (Wood).
This act establishes a separate offense, along with enforcing separate punishment,
when an assault or murder of a pregnant woman also causes death or bodily injury
to a child who is in utero (Wood). This Act applies regardless of what stage of
development the child is in at the time of death or injury, while in the uterus. An
expecting mother is murdered it is recognized as a double homicide, the murder of
two individuals. The passage of this bill and its approval by former president
George W. Bush both provides fetuses with legal life, and defends their human
rights (Butler). Yet, according to the current policy, if a women herself terminates
her own pregnancy it is not murder. It is not logical that in one context the
developing child is considered a person and that ending or incapacitating its
development towards life is punishable, but is permissible in another.
“Since the famed American case of Roe v. Wade, law courts throughout the
western world have generally refused to acknowledge a fetus as a separate legal
entity capable of being victimized” (Butler). Prior to this case abortion was illegal
in nearly every state with exceptions including for the sake of saving a women’s
life and other limited reasons, including rape and incest. Roe v. Wade’s ruling was
the first time the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional rights to privacy “is
broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her
pregnancy” (Roe v. Wade, 1973). Roe has many intellectual inadequacies that are
recognized and criticized among legal scholars. Surprisingly, among these
intellectuals are many in personal favor of the right to abortion. This case is not a
constitutional law and should not be interpreted as one. According to Robert
George, “the justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and
dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their
own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the
people” (Taylor). Thus, it is clear that in the case of Roe v. Wade, it is not a
constitutional law. It is merely one outdated case that should not have such great
influence on the issue of abortion and should be reconsidered.
My proposal that abortion should be made illegal with exceptions to
victims of incest, rape, or major health risks is the most commonsensical answer to
the abortion controversy. Seeing as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was
signed into law by the president and approved by both the House of
Representatives and Senate, it should be taken into consideration when discussing
legal concerns with abortion. A fetus or embryo is considered a victim in incidents
of assaults against an expecting mother and someone can be charged separately for
its death or injury. It should be no different for women who choose to end their
own unborn child’s life without proper reasoning it’s practically the same
situation. It is most logical that this act be referenced when considering whether
abortion should be legally prohibited or permissible. The Roe v. Wade case has
been use as a precedent since 1973 and is no longer relevant; the system needs
updating. Abortion needs to be illegal but there must be exceptions when the
violation of and individual’s rights are involved. Violations that result in
pregnancy or a violation of rights due to pregnancy should be the only instances
where abortion should be tolerated. It is important that humans are entitled to their
rights, most prominently their right to life. Fetuses and embryos are human beings
and should not be denied these rights. Abortion should be made illegal in the
United States, because human rights are essential. The ability to choose should
only be provided to women who are victims of rape, incest, or life-threating risks
from their pregnancy.
Works Cited
"Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified?." The Association of ProLife Physicians. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm>.
Butler, Sara M. "Abortion by assault: violence against pregnant women in
thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England." Journal of Women's History
17.4 (2005): 9+. Academic OneFile. Web. 30 Nov. 2012.
Irving, Dianne N. "WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN? "SCIENTIFIC"
MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS." Princeton. International Journal of
Sociology and Social Po, Feb. 1999. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html>.
Lazar, Patrick Rares. "Considerations regarding the legal status of embryo and
fetus from the perspective of the right to life." Contemporary Readings in
Law and Social Justice 4.1 (2012): 371+. Academic OneFile. Web. 27 Nov.
2012.
Reardon, David C. "Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths."
AfterAbortion.org. WordPress, 8 Aug. 2004. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
<http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyondthe-myths-3/>.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Taylor, Justin. "Roe v. Wade, 35 Years Later: An Interview with Robert P. George
." The Gospel Coalition. N.p., 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2012.
Wagner, Steven. "“What if the Mother’s Life is in Danger?”." str.org. N.p., 2005.
Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/mother_s_life.pdf?docID=143>.
Wood, Jennifer K. "In whose name? Crime victim policy and the punishing power
of protection." NWSA Journal 17.3 (2005): 1+. Academic OneFile. Web. 30
Nov. 2012.