Abortion the Pro-Choice Point of View
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 have been a few cases attempting to outlaw abortion, one of which is the Roe versus Wade case. Roe argued that making a woman carry a baby against her will is a governmental 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, which 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 as pro-choice women by giving them no other choice but to have an abortion (if they want an abortion) in an unsafe and unsanitary environment that threatens the woman’s health. By closing Abortion Clinics anywhere you are creating obstacles and enlarging the barriers to 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 that 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 for falling.” I have one answer to this, the mother shouldn’t also be punished because they made a mistake. Who has 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 quickly makes them fall into deathly slumber? Even if that second human is not able to tell it is being killed or being allegedly”hurt” in the first place. Why should this human be able to survive if it means 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 inhumane 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 its own life,” is what you say, then why should a woman be denied 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 childbirth to then put it up for adoption. Baoccurredbies who get put up for adoption don’t always get adopted anyway. On average, an adolescent girl would rather abort an unwanted child than tarry the baby to full term and then put it into an adoption home. Also financial status has a part in the equation. The lack of birth control education, medical, and family planning resources a ris easwhyohy 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 keep it and follow through with childbirth. “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 childbirth? 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 by 24% This increase in the birth rate occurred in all states throughout this period. National surveys have also stated that 85% of births to women aged fourteen to nineteen are unintended. This proves that many underaged pregnancies are unintended and people 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 childbirth 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 they 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 childbirth 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 alovee partner or possibly just out of convenience. When a woman feels it is necessary 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 still do it where so, will harm much more than the baby’s life, but possibly her own.
The “Due Process Clause” of the fourteenth amendment states that government forces shall not intrude on the peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit 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 scrutiny of the state needs to be asserted to justify their abridgment.” Poe v. Ullman. Now, “liberty’ for such a large nation cannot be focused on specifically 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 pregnancy, the child is still very dependent 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 “equation 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 do not know, yet, have no relation to the child, or mother, or facing voting on such an intrusion of privacy and sensitive issue? If the “child” inside of you does not have the selawarenessss and acknowledgment of your, it, or anyone else’s life, then the fetus is no longer a person, so aborting it would be as immoral and like t 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 to the mistake of getting pregnant when resulting in death, injury, or suffering by the mother. If a mother is physically incapable of having a baby, financially capable of raising one and putting him/her through child care so she can work a second job, or emotionally un incapable 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) they can not 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 does not 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 then 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 don’t 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 and money for her baby. You can say her husband has to do most of these things but he still doesn’t have to go through childbirth. In some cases there is no husband; the baby is the production of two irresponsible and underaged teens. Thank you for your time.