A Country Split in HalfEssay Preview: A Country Split in HalfReport this essayThere has never been an issue which caused more disputes and conflicts within our country, than abortion. We can all agree that abortion is an incredibly complex issue. The opinion of the American people is also a lot more complex than “pro life” or “pro choice”. According to one poll that was conducted by a Christian organization, seventy-five percent of Americans believe in “pro life” theory. According to another poll, which was conducted by a state medical board, concluded that the majority of Americans believe in a “pro choice” ideology. Who do we believe? There seems to be an obvious difference in the definition of the terms. I suppose it is possible to create unanimous definition of both terms, which will be approved by both sides, but until then our country will continue to fight a never-ending battle. I also believe that we would not have to fight over this issue if everybody fully understood the indisputable consequences, which would be caused by a ban on abortion.
Abortion right is the most controversial issue among women. I find it disturbing that some women advocate a ban without considering the consequences. By advocating a ban on abortion women deprive themselves of some of the fundamental rights of our political system. The freedom to make individual choices and decisions should be protected at all times. If people understood this principle, we probably would not be in the situation that we are in today. Most Americans would not want the government to interfere in their personal lives but a “pro life” decision will do just that.
Banning abortion will not solve this issue because we will be left with undeniable negatives, which will make the problem even worse than it is now. There will always be a controversy about abortion for as long as it exists. Even if we ban abortion, we will be left with such undeniable negatives as rape, economic inequality and illegal abortions. Today there are hundreds of thousands of children in foster homes partly because abortion was not available to their parents. According to one government study, unwanted number of children will more than triple thus flooding foster homes all over the country. Rich women will have an opportunity to obtain abortion in foreign countries that do not consider it to be a crime, while the poor will be left with a baby, which may not be loved or appreciated. Every time you have a law, someone will most likely brake
The Right to Life Campaign will continue to push for a life of peace in our world. The same laws and standards that protect unborn children as well as those supporting an unborn child, will not keep up if our child may not be raised successfully. We know that even in a society that believes in life and marriage, children can harm themselves. That is why we must protect them from harm. Abortion is no substitute for loving children, to protect them from harm, and to live a life of peace. Those children will, and those children will die, just as they would children who die when they are no longer pregnant.
We are fighting for a free and just world, and we are fighting for the right to live on, say, an island in the Pacific Ocean. Women at every level of society have a human right to life. If we fight for a free and just world, we may not be able to win that right—it will be more of a problem than a chance.
***
In the meantime, we need a national conference to discuss the recent Supreme Court nomination on a range of controversial Supreme Court legal issues. Here are the three key points:• The Court can’t be given more time to weigh in, so it now needs unanimous law-and-order consensus before it can decide which legal questions are worth taking up.• The Constitution has the ability to prohibit the Executive of the United States and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government from imposing political action that is incompatible with the separation of powers; and it must prohibit the Executive from imposing political action that could undermine our Constitutional Rights.• Only in recent years, federal courts have upheld laws that have been based on a single individual’s personal views, as long as those opinions are consistent with those of their state or local officials. As a consequence, when the court comes back from a decision, it will be based largely on whether a law is consistent with that opinion, not on the individual’s personal views.• Many of these decisions are based on political considerations. The majority of judges in states such as California and Texas believe that some types of federal programs and practices will not be compatible with their own political beliefs and, therefore, must not be considered a part of “judicial philosophy and practice”. We have a right to privacy and due process that protects us from being labeled extremists or terrorists. But that right has been eroded by the power of the Federal Government and by the Supreme Court. In its opinion in Mp. 1006 (H.Res. 478), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution can prohibit “all legislative, executive, or judicial actions that are wholly inconsistent with those ideas, plans, and practices of religion and religious groups which, in view of their religious, or non-religious, causes may well clash or be contrary to that belief or policy of religious groups” under Article II, section 8 of the Constitution. This is where the phrase “the Federal Government and the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The constitutional protection of individual expression cannot be denied to individuals based on their sexual orientation. But the courts have repeatedly recognized, and the courts can and must also affirm, that individual liberty cannot be infringed on only by governments determined to protect individuals from unconstitutional state activity. In their opinions, the Court stated that a state can only impose its own social and political goals based on constitutional and national concerns. But that