Abortion is one
of the most controversial issues around, and is an issue that will never be
agreed upon. By bringing morals into the question of
whether it should be legal to have
abortions, this
issue has been elevated to a higher level.
By some people, it is no longer
looked at as a
question of choice but as a question of morality, and these concepts have led
to a full-blown
debate over something that really should not be questioned.
Every women in America has the right to decide
what to do with their bodies. No
government or
group of people should feel that they have the right to dictate to a person
what path their
lives should take.
People who say that
they are "pro-life" are in effect no
more than
"anti-choice". These
pro-lifers want to put the life and future of a women into
the hands of the
government. Abortion, and the choice a
women may make, is a very
private thing and
should not be open to debate. The
question of morality should not even
come into play
when considering abortion, because in this case the question is not of
morality but of
choice and constitutionality.
The ninth amendment states "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This in turn, is
guaranteeing a
women the right to have an abortion.
Pro-choice people say that abortion is
the killing of a
child, but pro-choice people do not consider the fetus a child. A
philosopher, Mary
Anne Warren, proposed that consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated
activity, and
self awareness are factors that determine 'person-hood'.
But, a misconception that held is that people
who are pro-choice are actually pro-
abortion. Many people that support the right of a women
to decide what to do with her
own body may be
personally against abortions. But, that
does not mean that they think the
government should
be able to pass laws governing what females do with their bodies. Pro-
choice people
simply believe that it is the right of a women to assess her situation and
decide if a baby
would be either beneficial or deleterious to her present life.
People that are against abortions do not take
many things into consideration. One
thing they do not
consider is how the life of a teenager may be ruined if they are not given
the option of
abortion. Another thing not considered
is the serious family strife that will
result if a baby
is forced to be born. Pro-lifers are
adamant about their beliefs and think
that they have an
answer to every situation.
Pregnant? Try adoption. Pregnant?
They
will help you
support the baby. What ever the women's
situation may be, pro-lifers will not
change their
stand.
Many people that are pro-life suggest adoption
as a viable alternative to abortion.
But, in reality,
this is not a good answer. The fact is
is that the majority of people looking
to adopt are
middle class white couples. Another fact
is is that most of the babies given up
for adoption (or
that are aborted) are of a mixed race.
And, the truth is, is that most of the
adopters do not
want these type of children. This is a
sad fact, but is true. Why else
would adopting
couples be placed on a waiting list for a few years when there are so many
other kinds of
babies out there. Would these pro-lifers
rather see these children grow up as
wards of the
state, living a life of sorrow and misery?
Pro-lifers are fighting for laws that will make
abortion illegal. Do they really think
that this will
stop abortions? The only thing a law
against abortions will accomplish will be
to drive pregnant
women to seek help in dark alleys and unsafe situations, resulting not
only in the
termination of the pregnancy, but perhaps their own lives as well. In the 1940's
when abortion was
illegal, there were still many cases of women seeking help elsewhere.
The only
difference though, is that these women usually ended up dead because of
hemorrhaging or
infection. If a woman wants an abortion,
illegal or legal, nothing will stop
her. Why would pro-lifers, who supposedly put so
much value in life, want to endanger
the live of
another person?
It is true that if a law is passed against
abortion, it may serve to prevent some
abortions. A women may not have enough money for an
alley-way abortion and would
then have to
carry their pregnancy to term. The
results of this could be disastrous.
First of
all, the mother
would be depressed, probably would not get prenatal care, may drink, do
drugs, or any
other thing she could do to perhaps harm the life of the baby. And, when the
baby finally is
born, the mother may hate the baby, knowing that it has ruined her chance
of ever
accomplishing her goals in life. If
these 'women forced into motherhood' do
happen to keep
their child, there is a good chance of child abuse and neglect. These
unwanted
children, raised by the state or unloving parents, would then give birth to
another
generation of
unwanted children. Also, in some
desperate situations, new mothers may
have the idea
that since they could not have an abortion they will kill their baby right
after
birth, perhaps
with the idea that they would get away with it and be able to start their life
afresh. When all of these situations are considered
by an open-minded person, abortion
seems the better
of them.
Radical pro-lifers fight for the lives of
children and then go and destroy the lives of
abortion
doctors. Does this mean that they place
more value on the live of a bundle of
cells and tissues
than they do on a human being?
Contradictions such as these lead many
pro-choice people
to believe that pro-lifers are close-minded, immovable, radicals.
Pro-lifers may say to all of these arguments
that any of these situations would be
preferable to abortion. The important thing, they believe, is that
these children will be
living. They say that when a women goes to get an
abortion the fetus is given no choice.
But, in effect,
what they really are saying is that the power of choice should be taken away
from the mothers,
giving the unborn child an opportunity to be brought into a loveless,
lonely, and
uncaring world.
No comments:
Post a Comment