Abortion - the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to terminate a pregnancy. That is the definition I found when I looked it up in the dictionary.
People have become very divided over this controversial issue. On one side are the "pro-life" advocates. On the other side are the "pro-choice" advocates. They each present what seems to be a good argument for their position and against the other.
The "pro-choice" advocates refer to the first amendment. Although it is not specifically stated, they believe the first amendment implies a right to personal privacy. They then continue on to say that the developing fetus is a part of the woman's body, and that she has the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
The "pro-life" advocates say that every developing fetus (more commonly referred to as a baby) has the right to live, except in cases where continuing to carry the child would result in both the mother's death and the loss of the baby. They do not believe that the right to privacy that may be implied by the first amendment protects abortion rights, because, the developing baby is no longer 100% part of the woman's body. Yes, it lives and grows off of the mother, but it has a very different DNA than the mother does. As soon as it begins to develop, it is a new individual. They believe that individual should be awarded the same unalienable right to life as every other individual.
Now comes my opinion. I am a "pro-life" advocate. As stated above, the developing fetus (or baby) is a new individual. I understand that carrying the baby would not be ideal in some situations. If somebody gets drunk at a party and goes too far too fast with someone, and ends up pregnant, they may not want to continue to carry the baby. The baby is just a mistake. If someone gets raped and becomes pregnant, they may also fight with the idea of whether to terminate (abort) the pregnancy. They don't want to carry a raper's child. I feel the pain of these individuals, but I do not believe that abortion should be taken lightly. The fact that you made mistakes and wound up pregnant is not the developing fetus's (baby's) fault. The fact that something completely awful and horrendous happened to you is also not the developing fetus's (baby's) fault. It cannot help how it was created, but it was created nonetheless.
The stage at which many abortions occur, to get rid of the 'unwanted' fetus or embryo is the same stage at which some couples begin to get extremely excited about the baby that's on the way. Is this fair, that some developing fetuses (babies) get terminated (killed), and others at the same stage of development get rejoiced over? I don't believe so!
I understand that if the pregnancy was not planned, there may be no way to adequately provide for the child that would be born, should the pregnancy be carried to term. However, there are thousands of couples within the United States that are unable to have children of their own. They have to search across the world to find a newborn baby to adopt and raise as their own. In many cases, they are forced to adopt from Russia, or another foreign country. If someone feels that they would not be able to provide for the child, and do not want them to live a life in the foster care system, that would undoubtably not be a very convenient or comfortable life, they may feel that abortion is their only option. However, I believe that carrying the baby to term, delivering the baby, and giving it up for adoption is a much better option. The developing fetus (baby) that they want to abort is not like an extra organ in the mother's body in every aspect. While it grows due to the mother, it also has a unique DNA, and therefore is a new person. I believe that new person's right to life should be taken into account above the 'right to privacy' of the mother.
Your freedoms extend as far as possible unless they begin to infringe upon another individual's freedoms. I believe that the mother's freedom (right to privacy) is trumped by the new individual/developing fetus/baby 's right to life.
I respectfully disagree with you (obviously pro-choice), but you haven't touched on everything you could have in supporting your argument.
We do not only cite our right to privacy, but also the rights to control our own bodies (which could be seen as a right to privacy but one could also make the argument that it is the freedom to make medical choices for oneself).
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court actually laid out when it was safe to have an abortion and when it was not. After the certain point where they said terminating a pregnancy was no longer safe to the mother, they left it to the states to regulate the medical procedure.
The state of Texas tried to use the argument of life at birth, but the Supreme Court through it out because there is too much disagreement among experts as to when life begins.
Therefore, you cannot make the argument that most abortions are made when couples are celebrating the child without quantitative data. They happen, yes, but do you know how many occur per year?
I would also like to point out that women with HIV/AIDS have a 20% chance (I believe) to pass on this disease to their child. With today's medical technology there is, of course, the chance the child will not be born with this disease. 20% is still a high number. Those potential mothers are more likely to adopt if they want a child, but they still have the chance of becoming pregnant. What would you tell them if they were forced to carry a child they know may have an incurable disease?
Women have been terminating pregnancies for centuries as well. In the early twentieth centuries in the United States, women from poor families who were carrying their sixth child would self-abort because they could not provide for that child. They could not bring a child into the world knowing it would starve. (There are documented accounts. I can't remember the woman's name at the moment, but she was a strong advocate of birth control during the Progressive Era. In her speeches she includes anecdotes of poor women self-aborting and dying.) Of course, the abortions before the technology we have today were not safe and were very dangerous. If abortion is outlawed, you may see self-abortions and illegal abortions (like during the Cold War) will continue.
There are many more arguments I could use to perhaps better your rebuttal to us pro-choice supporters. However, I see it as my right to choose whether I have an abortion or not. It is a medical decision in regards to my own body that pertains to myself. The government and pro-lifers do not have the right to infringe on my right to control my own body.
“Tears may be dried up, but the heart – never.”
-Marguerite de Valois
I just want to touch on the adoption issue. There is no shortage of young children in foster care with a goal of adoption in these United States. No couple has to go all over the world in a desperate search for a kid to adopt.
The most recent data from the US Department of Health and Human Services (Administration for Children and Families department) puts the number of children up for adoption at 105,171. That's just the kids who's goals are adoption. In the foster care system, there are over 500,000 children... with about 300,000 added each year. And a nice amount of them are under 5--under 3 even. And for those people who couldn't possibly bring a toddler into their home to love, there are even a good percentage of babies. And those babies don't get adopted right away either, despite the alleged number of people desperate to raise them. Infants and young children are entering foster care in greater numbers than any other age group and remain in care longer than older children.
Do you know where those kids go? No where. Only about 5% of kids in foster care ever get adopted.They stay in the foster care system because no one adopts them. They run away, they end up at institutions, they get passed from family to family, they live in group homes, they go to prison. And, when they finally turn 18, a lot of them end up homeless.
Within two to four years of leaving foster care only 54% of kids have completed high school. Less than half are employed, 25% of kids in foster care end up homeless. 30% don't have access to needed health care. 60% of young women leaving foster care have given birth themselves.
Whoever came up with this theory that too many parents are unable to adopt children because there's a shortage of children to adopt is full of shit.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
The "pro-choice" advocates refer to the first amendment. Although it is not specifically stated, they believe the first amendment implies a right to personal privacy. They then continue on to say that the developing fetus is a part of the woman's body, and that she has the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
Jeez, if you're going to try to explain the pro-choice movement, at least do a little research first. The right to privacy (and abortion) is not based on the First amendment; it's based on the Fourteenth amendment. You could've learned this from Wikipedia, for pete's sake.
The Fourteenth amendment defines a person as "born." Women are persons. Pregnancies are not. Women have an inalienable right to remove things from their bodies. No government can stop women from aborting unwanted pregnancies if that's what they want to do. Banning abortion only serves to harm women and families.
Pro-choice people are pro-choice because they don't like the idea of desperate girls seeking out quack illegal abortionists for dangerous and deadly illegal abortions. We would rather desperate girls have the option of visiting a trained and licensed doctor for a safe abortion. Fetuses die either way; why let women die, too? Legal abortion protects life.
The "pro-life" advocates say that every developing fetus (more commonly referred to as a baby) has the right to live, except in cases where continuing to carry the child would result in both the mother's death and the loss of the baby.
Illegal abortion results in the death of the woman and the fetus.
They do not believe that the right to privacy that may be implied by the first amendment protects abortion rights, because, the developing baby is no longer 100% part of the woman's body.
So what? Whether it's part of her body or not, you can't deny that it's inside her body, and if she doesn't want it there, she has the right to remove it.
As soon as it begins to develop, it is a new individual.
No. It is an individual when it comes out of the woman's body.
They believe that individual should be awarded the same unalienable right to life as every other individual.
You are not in any position to give a fetus a "right to live" in someone else's body against their will.
If someone gets raped and becomes pregnant, they may also fight with the idea of whether to terminate (abort) the pregnancy. They don't want to carry a raper's child. I feel the pain of these individuals, but I do not believe that abortion should be taken lightly. The fact that you made mistakes and wound up pregnant is not the developing fetus's (baby's) fault.
A rape victim hasn't "made mistakes." What a disgusting thing to say. Rape is not the victim's fault, and she should not be penalized with the loss of her right to decide what happens to her own body.
Is this fair, that some developing fetuses (babies) get terminated (killed), and others at the same stage of development get rejoiced over?
Yes. It is completely fair that women get to decide how they feel about their pregnancies and react accordingly. Women are human beings with the right to our own individual feelings. We should not have to all think and feel the same.
However, there are thousands of couples within the United States that are unable to have children of their own.
And they are NOT entitled to a newborn from anyone else's body.
I believe that carrying the baby to term, delivering the baby, and giving it up for adoption is a much better option.
And nobody is stopping you from following your own beliefs with your own body. You should extend that same courtesy to everyone else.
Your freedoms extend as far as possible unless they begin to infringe upon another individual's freedoms.
This is exactly why women have the right to abortion. Nobody has a right to live inside someone else's body against their will; that would infringe upon women's individual freedom.
I take offense at many of the things you said.
First off, if you want me to learn something from a source you are quoting, you should never quote a wiki site, such as wikipedia.com It is extremely unreliable, because ANYBODY can go onto the site and change whatever they want. I know of people who have changed wordings on the site so that when you look up certain very rare non life-threatening diseases, it says that it's extremely common and always deadly. My point is that you telling me that I should learn something from wikipedia says nothing good about your sources of information.
Secondly, the right to privacy is also implied from the 1st amendment, not just the 14th amendment. The first amendment gives the right to free speech, petition, assembly, and religion, among other things. Thus, it has been implied that it also includes the right to privacy.
Third, you misread my statements. I had two statements about a couple reasons why people may want to get an abortion. The first was that you unintentionally went too far with your boyfriend. The second was that you got raped. Then, I explained my position based on those two issues, in order that I mentioned it. The 'making a mistake and ending up pregnant' WAS NOT in regards to the rape. I'm offended that you took it that way. I would NEVER say that it's your mistake that you got raped! It's an awful and horrendous thing to happen to someone. After that statement, I went on to say that it's also not the baby's fault that something awful happened to you. THEN I was referring to the rape.
Fourth, I was not saying that everybody needs to feel and act in the same manner. If that's how you read my statements, I think you should re-read them. You've taken so many things that I said and twisted them around to make me sound like an awful person, and I find it offending.
Fifth, "You should extend that same courtesy to others". I was stating my opinion in a blog for crying out loud! I'm not tring to force anything on anybody! My cousin got an abortion, but she's still my cousin and I still love her. Maybe you should extend the same courtesy to other people's opinions as you obviously want given to your own. I even mentioned that what I was going to write in the next statments was my own opinion.
Lastly, I just want to let you know that I was offended greatly by this response. You twisted my words around to make me sound like an awful person, and that's extremely rude. I would have graciously received your opinion if you hadn't been so extremely rude about how you presented it to purpously make me seem like a terrible person for sharing my personal opinion!