Abortion: A Basic RightEssay Preview: Abortion: A Basic RightReport this essayAbortion: A Basic RightThe abortion controversy has been debated for years. The presidential election this year has become very involved with this topic. On one side, John F. Kerry, along with third party candidate Ralph Nader, the pro-choice supporters, sees individual choice as central to the debate: If a woman cannot choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a condition which affects her body and possibly her entire life, then she has lost one of her most basic human rights. However, George Bush feels the complete opposite. He thinks having an abortion is unethical and unjust. I agree with Kerry. The government has no right to interfere with a mothers decision and trying to deny abortion to any woman is denying that mothers civil rights.
The Abortion Law of 1969
As a young and inexperienced legal scholar, I worked on numerous cases defending the ban on “fetal rape” in the late 1960s. For those of us who worked in a clinic, getting into a relationship or getting married was an act of desperation even under the threat of “fetal rape.” When a woman was pregnant, the doctor could take her to the clinic where she could live and the doctor could bring her into that clinic, but she may still be punished if she refused. We also saw cases where a patient refused to take another’s fetus, only to face an “abortifacient rape,” or a legal rape. Our approach was to call it any kind of “fetal rape” in the legal system because the situation was far from normal. In a similar way we were seeking to make sure that all the services that would normally be available to pregnant women were provided to the “tribal” woman if those women felt that she or he was violating her, or that he or she was pregnant or that he was making her feel unsafe. We thought this would be a strong demonstration of the commitment that has gone on in a variety of different legal systems, even for women who felt that they were not being treated humanely or by professional institutions. What is surprising, however, is how little our legal system has looked at having the “abortifacient rape” as being a threat to that woman’s right to bodily autonomy, which ultimately makes women in the first place more likely to be harmed when they choose to have a second abortion.
A few minutes into my review of the first case, I went to visit the clinic where my husband and I were waiting for our first baby (which was a girl). I got a brief interview and began thinking about what the situation was like in that case and how we wanted to talk about it. My initial thoughts were that our actions were the only way women could know that they were being cared for and cared for.
The next session we looked at a medical doctor’s advice on what might be appropriate for a pregnant woman when dealing with life threatening conditions. The advice we gave was on the right side of how to help a woman decide if she was pregnant or not and that we could not give her a different plan if she decided not to get pregnant. We found that if pregnant, it could take over two years of pregnancy for a woman to tell a medical doctor she would not be able to continue living with the fetus for up to a year, while still receiving her child care. The doctor’s advice we gave her, for example, asked that every day of pregnancy be monitored (no more than 15 minutes apart, not more than 10 minutes apart), and was concerned that it could negatively affect the health or safety of the unborn child. While some women were able to get a better grasp of the nature of their fetus than people did, there were also differences in how their medical doctors were trained and how they treated them.
We took a picture as our conversation progressed with the doctor, who told us that she always believed that the only way she felt when she spoke negatively about the pregnancy, was if she was forced to have an abortion, and that had her fetus. This meant
In order to form an opinion on this matter, it is important that one understands many of the common factors, which are constantly debated. When does human life begin? There is a societal agreement that a newborn is a human person. People disagree about whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person. People have different opinions about the stage at which human life begins. This is the core disagreement that drives the abortion wars. Bush argues, “I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America. This is an issue thats going to require a new attitude. Weve been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life” (Bush). This opinion is based solely on an individuals moral point of view. Decisions based on those ethical beliefs should not be made by the government. It should be up to the individuals. During conception life is created; however, even though it might be considered a living thing, is it a person? Whether or not abortion should be legal seeks the answer to the question of whether a fetus is a person and if so, at what point does the fetus become a person.
This is a question that cannot be answered rationally or practically. “The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on ones fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world”(Campos) In my opinion, to make a person a person there must be evidence of a personality. A personality is formed when a baby has entered the world. It acts and reacts to situations put upon it and forms its opinions in that manner. It is only then that we can consider it a unique person with its own personality. Someone could argue that an abortion is taking an unborn childs life, but what life are they talking about? To be alive, one must have experiences, which an unborn child simply does not have. A womans rights outweigh those of an unborn childs. Society is constantly changing and although the Supreme Court shows sympathy and respect for traditional values, it also recognizes the need for change. The Supreme Court agrees with Kerry and other pro-choice supporters.
One such influential case involving abortion was Roe vs. Wade. It all started out in a small town in Texas where a woman under the alias Jane Roe filed a case in district court for a womans right to choose abortion (Doudera 142). At this time, the law in Texas prohibited abortion. Eventually the case moved to the Supreme Court. The attorneys for Roe argued that the law was unfair. They said that the unborn fetus is not a real person. Kerrys position is that the unborn child is not a person, according to the law. Though human, the unborn child is not protectable human life. That means Kerry adheres to and supports the decision made in Roe v. Wade (Cooney). The Supreme Court pointed out that a woman should have the right to control her own life and body. The Supreme Court also argued that women have fundamental rights to abortion. It was a right of privacy and if a woman felt that the right choice was to abort a baby, they should be allowed to make it.
The case, which was filed in District Court, was filed against Dallas District attorney Wade. Wade, who shares the same opinions as Bush, strongly opposed abortion and believed abortion was murder. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, a person has an undeniable right to freedom. Wad tried to persuade the Supreme Court by stating that the fetus has a right to freedom guaranteed by this amendment. After hearing both sides of this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jane Roe. It stated that women have a fundamental right to abortion. Due to this case and the ruling of it, all states have legalized abortion. Roe vs. Wade has greatly influenced the world today. Furthermore, the pro-choice forces hoped they had proved the pro-life forces wrong by having had the Supreme Court of the United States decide in Roe vs. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Other organizations also agree with the decisions made by the Supreme Court and support a womans rights to choice. Planned Parenthood, one such organization, helps defend those rights by voicing their opinion:
Reproductive freedom–the fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a child–is a reaffirmation of the principle of individual liberty cherished by most people worldwide. It helps ensure that children will be wanted and loved, that families will be strong and secure, and that choice rather than chance will guide the future of humanity (Planned Parenthood 1).
Todays traditional family is different from the past generations family and is still continuing to change. In society now, women can chose to have the family that they desire. They can decide for themselves if they want an additional child or any child at all. The woman is expected to care and be responsible for the child for the next eighteen years of its life. If she does not feel she is adequate to care for it, or she knows she cant provide a good life for it, that is her decision not the laws. Only a mother can be the judge of her own ability. Being such a huge responsibility, who ever the parent may be has to be positive that they want to bring that child into this world. It is tragic how many unwanted children are born and struggle through their adolescence or entire life. It is important for women to have that option