Abortion – to Kill or Not to KillEssay Preview: Abortion – to Kill or Not to KillReport this essay“To kill or not to kill”It is evident that abortion is an issue that will not subside. There are two completely opposite sides of this issue in which no compromise appears to be apparent. The controversy lies on whether or not we believe human life begins at conception. By definition, life does begin at conception. The definition of alive means that the being is growing, developing, maturing, and replacing its own dying cells. These are all characteristics which are held by a fetus. If life does begin at conception, by law, human life is guaranteed equal protection therefore making abortion illegal in society. However in society today, abortion is made legal.
In contrast, the abortion bill in California, which I oppose, was considered by many to come up short in its intent. It was passed, and for many years was seen as the only option available for all, except the politically active, pro-choice right that was a big cheerleader for the ban. The reality is, as has been noted, that as a movement that stands up to the establishment forces of government and the pro-choice agenda, there are those in the abortion debate who, despite being pro-life, would still prefer this new bill pass so it didn’t lose a vote in California.
The law that would permit abortion is an extremely controversial one for many reasons. It would restrict people’s right to choose from a very limited list, giving the government the freedom to ban all forms of abortion. Furthermore, some states, such as California, which have already outlawed abortion, would prefer to make life or be a more limited option. For example in the states of Oklahoma, where the restriction would be similar to the ban that we now face, an unbalanced ban that could only lead to greater abortion or more devastating abortions would be problematic as it would only make a potentially fatal case in the right of the mother of an unborn child.
On abortion legal vs. banned
Some of what I’ve discussed is somewhat controversial. In other words, any regulation that the government wishes to make of the abortion market should be based on the evidence that the procedure occurs in a medical clinic. Thus, the most compelling argument is that the regulation doesn’t violate the right to life and that, despite the fact that an abortion is illegal, the government should not have to regulate it on religious grounds.
The court’s ruling in McCaskill v. Abbott also does not support those arguments. McCaskill v. Abbott is the first case in court that would deny any specific religious authority to define or define a medical procedure as a “thing” except if that person has been placed before a religious tribunal. The other major problem for proponents of this approach to abortion is that there is no legitimate claim for religious protection against legal abortions — they simply cite the idea that it is morally appropriate to make the medical procedure illegal.
In McCaskill, which was a controversial case, the government argued that a woman’s medical history should tell the truth about her actions. The court reasoned that the doctor could only allow the woman’s medical history to be changed to “cause abortion,” and the government’s arguments included the word “caused,” the idea that God intended her to be aborted, and it was thus not possible for a woman to be induced. Moreover, the woman’s doctor did not have to give any medically relevant evidence of how her medical history affected the abortion procedure, and her physician had not been compelled to explain the rationale or how these facts could be changed.
It appears that the court’s ruling doesn’t support McCaskill at all but has very little or nothing to do with it. It does, however, support the government’s
As to any coin there is a flip side. There are few extreme cases for which I feel abortion should be taken into consideration. For instance, there have been cases where girls have been sexually abused and have become impregnated. In this case where the premature young lady is practically incapable to carry the child, abortion feels necessary. An additional example would be if a womans life would be put into jeopardy as a result of the pregnancy.
Many women exploit the power to abort and use it as a “condom” to ensure that they will not have to deliver or raise their child due to personal problems. In these cases, there are certain constructive areas that can be encouraged that should be non-controversial, such as adoption. I feel adoption can be sought through the following instances, within rape victims and pregnancy due to sexual molestation, where the mother and the baby will not be physically harmed as a result of the pregnancy.
All in all I deem abortion as an immoral wrong act. Different alternatives should be pondered before making the critical decision of taking away ones life. I feel that abortion should be something that should be thought out in extreme cases but otherwise immoral and a sinful act against natures wishes.