Category: Abortion

Abortion has been a contentious issue in the American society. The society has been controlling fertility using abortion irrespective of its legality. The United States legalised this practice before 1880; afterwards, it was banned in most states but only allowed when a womans life was to be saved or in case a womans life was in danger.

Traditionally, women practiced abortion amid public support and no court conviction (Libertarianism). Notably, during this time even the Church did not lead a repression against this act. Before the 19th century, women could assist each other in the abortion process.

Women healers in US openly trained other women to abort without judicial interventions. The US government has overtime remained in focus on abortion issues. Historical court rulings reveal the divisions that have existed in the US on the topic of abortion. The government has been changing positions on this issue with numerous amendments. This has been due to the differences in opinion between the Democrats and Republicans on abortion.

In the early 1800, there was no law touching on abortion for women, it was not easy for them to refuse to go along with abortion practices hence eliminating the need for it (Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union).

The US government has ensured that women experiencing inferior abortions and affected by abdominal infections are treated in the emergency wards that were established in some of their hospitals. Markedly, the doctors were the ones allowed to perform this process. If abortion was to be done to a young female, the doctors were to inform their parents before carrying out this operation. This information was to remove any liability from the doctor in case of any risk that can arise like death of the young female.

In 1973, in a case between Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman should be the one to decide when to have an abortion. This Amendment Concept of Human Liberty was considered as a right of privacy. In Roe versus Wade, the term right of privacy was viewed as broad to include whether a woman opts to abort or not.

Notably, this ruling legalised abortion in the US. During this time, the government initiative that supports health care, Medicaid, offered funding to women who wanted to stop pregnancy. The land-mark ruling by the Supreme Court made women have the legal right to abortion.

This ruling ensured that the womens rights were entrenched in the constitution. Therefore, barriers of whichever nature to abortion were deemed to be unconstitutional at this point. It is clear that the government was not able to determine out rightly when life begins.

The Texas and Georgia court rulings left a key question on whether a foetus has right to life or not. Obviously, the rulings had little concern for the life of the unborn babies; therefore, presuming that life begins at the start of the third trimester and not necessarily at conception. The third trimester is a period between the 7th and the 9th month of pregnancy.

Therefore, the government removed all restrictions that were on abortion between conception and the sixth month. In Doe versus Boltons case in Georgia, Justice Harry Blackmun ruled that the life of a mother encompasses her emotional, physical, psychological and family well-being. This ruling also gave room for abortion even at the 3rd trimester since a womans health was given more priority than the life of the foetus.

Conversely, in 1977 the federal government offered to limit Medicaid funding to support abortion. By 1981, the government no longer allowed all the above exceptions. Overtime, abortion raised different opinions. This continuity led to reacceptance of the three exceptions.

Currently, the Hyde amendment has all the three exceptions as the only reasons that can make one carry out abortion. Markedly, the ban on Medicaid for funding abortion significantly affects low income females. Civil discussion came to an agreement that a pregnant woman and her doctor have a legal right to whether to abort or not and only if her health is in danger that she is forced to terminate the pregnancy.

The US government started to fund trimester abortions to help poor pregnant women whose health were in danger. The government also required parents to be involved in case their children are involved in abortion practices.

They were to be informed by the doctors verbally or in writing, failure of which penalties are to follow. In Thornburg versus American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of 1986, the Supreme Court changed that the 3rd trimester abortions should take into concern the life of the child in preference to the mothers life.

In addition, women were to be trained on prenatal development, educated on abortion alternatives and informed on risks that accompany abortion. Citizens began to avoid abortion practices although the abortion law remained in force. Most states began restricting abortion by instituting legislative measures following the 1986 court ruling. The year 1989 marked a drastic shift from the earlier rulings on when life begins.

In Webster versus Reproductive Health Services, the court declared that life begins at conception and that the federal government has no interest on the development of the foetus during pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood versus Casey case of 1992, the court ruled that when performing an abortion, 24 hours waiting period should be given to the victim. This was meant to prepare the woman psychologically hence have a full consent of abortion.

The Hyde amendment having restricted funding abortion placed low income women at risk since they could take a lot of time struggling to meet the cost of abortion. These women even lacked insurance covers on abortion. These women could even opt to receive support from untrained practitioners, which is always unsafe and illegal. This amendment denies women abortion services even in case of serious mental or health problems.

The differences in earning levels of American women show marginalization that the amendment has entrenched. It denied poor women basic reproductive health care. Others are of the view that the amendment has infringed on the right of the womenfolk. However, they could get funds during the late stages of pregnancy which is always accompanied by high health risks.

In 2000, the US government rejected partial birth control because it did not protect the life of a pregnant woman. The life of a pregnant woman was to be considered and be protected (History of Abortion). The government highly supported the use of contraceptives.

The US government encouraged women to use them to prevent the unplanned pregnancies. In case of full term pregnancy or rape, federal medical funds were expelled to pay for abortion, but only if the womans health was at risk. This initiative saw 17 states in the US pay for abortions of underprivileged women as others were paid by public funds.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 passed legislation that a doctor found performing a partial birth control was to be imprisoned for two years while a woman undergoing the procedure was not be prosecuted with an indemnity to save her life. In addition, charges against the mother or the doctor should be introverted as it was considered as a way of prohibiting abortion.

Life was considered to begin at conception. The senate in 2011 removed abortion coverage for women who were raped in the military as they argued that the military are pro-life (History of Abortion). However, abortion coverage still remained in force for civilians who were employed by the federal and state governments. Nevertheless, Pentagon funds were used to cover the abortion procedure in cases where a mothers life was in danger.

Federal tax dollars were kept in separate domestic accounts as per the US government; this was to take care of abortion cases. Those with unlimited options had to pay at least $1per month to help in supporting them in case of abortion (Torre). According to this law, any person interested in signing for the public option, a federally administered programme, paid for abortion treatment.

According to Vice President Joe Biden, life begins at conception; therefore, abortion process stops the life of an innocent soul. This is also in line with the church teachings. He ensured that the government took an initiative to illegalise abortion unless under certain circumstances.

The government ensured public justice by protecting the primary life-giving of its people and offering supportive conditions in nurturing children, in the society. In case of unplanned pregnancies, the government had to take corrective measures to prevent reoccurrence of the problem rather than promoting abortion on the basis of individual sovereignty.

Additionally, the government ensured that families took the responsibility of bringing up their children. The US government instituted counselling services on health of both the child and the mother, pregnancy and adoption services hence minimising abortion practices. Massive counselling on the impacts of abortion reduced abortion rate tremendously. This idea has been acknowledged by religions especially the Catholic Church which believes that life begins at conception.

They were at the frontline in offering pregnancy counselling on impacts of abortion to women (History of Abortion). The Church believed that abortion was an act against the will of God. According to the Church, life begins at conception; therefore, any attempt to carry out abortion at any point of pregnancy contravenes the will of God. In addition, the Church held that the act was also contravening human beings right to life.

A few citizens in the US came out to oppose the government funding on abortion. However, when asked to give reasons for their opposition, only 3% supported funding of abortion while 8% said that there was a possibility that the government is spending a lot of money towards abortion. However, the US government held that they were only supporting reforms on abortion.

The government has gone ahead to establish emergency wards in some hospitals just to ensure that the life of a mother undergoing abortion illegally is saved. The Pew Research of 2009 showed that 42% support the idea but around 38% proposals oppose it (Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition).

An inclusion of this policy supporting funding of abortion will encourage women to engage in abortion practices. Nonetheless, only 28% of the proposals wanted it be included thus causing division during the health care debate.

As 42% of the citizens wanted abortion to be covered with government benefit, 49% were of the contrary idea. The US government has tried to illegalise abortion since the majority of its citizens has agreed that it should be allowed when the life of the pregnant mother is in danger (Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition).

Opposition of healthcare reforms was turned down even before the house passed its report. Although these debates took place, some US citizens still remained undecided about the proposals. Nevertheless, the government continued to support the abortion reforms just to ensure its citizens are able to support and contribute towards the reforms.

This legislation saw a 5% decline in abortion practices, the biggest one-year decrease in ten years. Experts held that the decrease in the rate of abortion was as a result of the harsh economic condition that was experienced worldwide. The situation made women to be so careful with their sexual lives.

In 2009, the Centre for Birth Control collected data which indicated that both rate and number of abortion fell to 5% (Sherratt). For example, California reported high decrease of abortion rates as a result of the implementation of these policies.

Researchers found that out of 1000 females who are capable of giving birth, about 16 underwent abortion in 2008 while 15 did abortion in 2009; this interpreted to almost 38,000 less abortion in one year. The use of contraceptives; the pills, patch, intrauterine device (IUD), T-shaped plastic sperm-killer, provided by the government for both women and teenagers contributed the decline of abortion.

Another cause for the abortion decline was due to morning after pills. It was accessible to many women and teenagers because it was to be sold to women above 18 years in 2006; however, in 2007 the age was lowered to 17. Morning after pills is a form of emergency contraception. Elizabeth Ananat, a Duke University assistant professor, held that abortion should be restricted by controlling pregnancy through the provision of birth control techniques (Sherratt).

In 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions that were on the funding of abortion. During this time, the senate was under the control of the pro-abortion while the House of Representatives was under the control of the anti-abortion law makers (Robinson).

His predecessor affirmed the restrictions on the Medicaid funding on abortion. During Bushs reign, there were no funds for family planning services that were given to bodies that conducted abortion. So serious was this restriction that even non-US government funds could not find their way into supporting family planning services.

This rule has been reinstated and rescinded among the Republicans and Democrats Head of States. For instance, Bill Clinton ensured that taxpayers funds were used to support abortion but when Bush took Office, he removed the funding. Currently, the Obama administration has rescinded the law. Bush, during his times, upheld that no single taxpayers money should be used to support abortions. This reinstatement of the law went down well with the anti-abortions.

These groups of people felt that it was a clear betrayal to American taxpayers who at the time were under a financial crisis. This law was known as the Mexico City Policy. They cited an example of over $400 million that US spent overseas on family planning activities. On the other hand, the anti-laws argue that the law minimize dangerous abortions and deaths that are conducted in the back streets of poor nations.

A denial on contraception, they believe has created low funding to overseas organizations tasked with offering family-planning and healthcare services. This law has led to different opinions among US citizens as they are divided between the Democrats and the Republicans position. It has been used as a tit for tat game when the main US political parties shift at the White House.

The lifting of the restriction has seen a steady increase in the number of terminated lives. For instance, in 2011, close to 329,445 abortions were carried out; this is far much higher than those abortions carried out in 2010. Statistically, over 18 million abortions had been carried out since the Supreme Courts ruling on Roe versus Wades case in 1973. The department of Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million to use in supporting abortion.

Again, black women are 5 times more to perform an abortion than white women. As a result, over 1, 876 lives of black children are terminated through abortion every day in the US. Abortion has tremendously reduced the number of black Americans. This topic has been so controversial with others argue that the government should not force its citizens to pay taxes which are going to be used in stopping innocent lives.

Those for the law argue that the US citizens are paying for acts they do not do; therefore, the extra abortion costs should be met by the victims. They go ahead to reveal that even if a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, the child is innocent and should not be aborted at any cost. The government should not demand to acquire tax from its citizens. The right of a woman to abort should not entitle her to the federal funds.

Most citizens believe that it is their constitutional right to carry out abortion. This idea has received backings from the Democrats and the Supreme Court. They feel it is necessary to offer funding for family planning and abortion in case a womans life is in danger. On the other hand, the Republican Party has held that life termination through abortion is illegal; as a result, the government should not pay for such illegal activities.

From this point, it is clear that the US government has been changing their position on abortion depending on the political party that takes control of the White House. The two main political parties hold different ideologies on this contentious topic. Presently, some legislators are lobbying to pass laws that will totally deny all women from buying insurance policies that cover abortion.

Abortion affects directly the lives of both the mother and the foetus. With different opinions on abortion by the main political parties in the US, the citizens, especially women remained divided on the way forward and the ideology to hold. This issue is so serious; therefore, requires politicians not to play politics with it.

Since some abortions cause multiple deaths, that is, the mother and the unborn baby, the government ought to leave this issue to the women themselves to decide on the way forward (Cox). Moreover, issues of life and death have direct psychological repercussions to the family of the deceased. For instance, there are working class women who in case of death, their families remain affected economically and socially.

Death of a spouse due to abortion also shows unpreparedness in a family. In addition, the government does not always offer monetary support to children who are orphaned due to abortion, an act that they offer financial support through Medicaid. Therefore, the government ought to leave this issue to the women themselves to decide and fund the entire process.

In terms of human rights, terminating the life of the unborn child is ethically wrong. This practice encourages unsafe and unplanned sex among people in the American society as they believe that they will get support from the government in order to undergo an abortion.

The Republican opinion on abortion that no taxpayers money should be used to end the life of Gods creature should be upheld. It also encourages carelessness in sexual activities. This can lead to spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) like HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhoea among others. HIV/AIDS, for instance, is incurable, and from the World Health Organizations statistics, the disease has caused numerous negative impacts across all sectors in the world.

The removal of government support will improve the societal moral behaviours as they will view abortion as an evil and illegal activity that is prosecuted in a court of law. The US government, therefore, should shun away from meeting abortion costs among its citizens.

A scrutiny of government expenditure shows that the US government uses over $542.4 million to fund abortion related activities. This cash can be directed to other programs like environmental conservation, enhancing food security in the third world countries, and sponsoring needy children in the society. For sure, this is a misplaced initiative by the government (Burneson).

The government should leave abortion to be a personal choice among women as their involvement cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Whatever a woman does with her body should be of minimal concern to the government. The government should offer guidance and risks involved in abortion.

The choice to abort or not should be left to a woman and her husband thereby avoiding public debates which will make it look controversial. If the government can leave this issue to be discussed privately among couples, then, the numerous life terminations will reduce tremendously. For instance, in a society where to remain unmarried to a woman is a leading cause for stigma, pregnancy will be the worst acts that women will want to happen to them. In fact, it will instil discipline among women.

On the other front, governments strict legislation on abortion can make pregnant women to sought for abortion from backstreet health centres with untrained doctors. Another ordeal involves conducting ultrasound of the foetus where women view and listen to a given description. This proves traumatic. The strict legislation will directly affect the life of the victims; therefore, the victim should be left with this option of undergoing an abortion or not (Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate). People hold different beliefs in their lifetimes.

In this perspective, ones beliefs should not interfere with others. It also implies that the government should not take sides on this as it may be forcing others to abide by other peoples beliefs. The times for dictatorial leadership are long gone, unless the US government wants to take its citizens back to the middle ages; it should be up to the women to decide on what to do with their lives. Government involvement on the topic of abortion whether they support it or not causes severe effects to the lives of its citizens.

On one side, government support to abortion through funding can make many women to engage in unprotected sex as they know that they will receive government support in order to carry out an abortion. In addition, this support will go against other citizens beliefs; for example, the Catholics who hold that such practices are evil as they sum up to murder of innocent souls.

On the other hand, the government restrictions on abortion may cause dissatisfaction among women who their lives may be in danger during the pregnancy period. Further, unplanned pregnancies may be aborted under risky conditions as the government has not legalised those centres thereby enhancing secrecy.

One should be allowed to make and implement his/her decision freely. The freedom of choice is a fundamental law that the government should not interfere with at all times.

For instance, if a woman believes that abortion is an immoral act, she will not practice it, and the government should also not come in to convince her that, at times, it can be done. On the other hand, if another woman wants an abortion, it will remain her own choice and not somebody else. In this situation, the government should keep off in attempting to assist or hinder her abortion process.

Instead of engaging in criticisms, women should be given psychological, moral and emotional support in order to go through the process. US should copy how Belgium handles her women during abortion periods. For example, a woman sees a psychologist before going through the procedure. Notably, the role of the psychologist is not to convince the woman to rescind on her decision of aborting but to continue counselling on her own decision (Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate).

Since abortion may come with challenging and stressful situations, it remains the role of the psychologist to guide the women on how to handle these challenges as they come. In any case the counselling process may alter the womans idea; she is allowed to take time off and come back later for further counselling. This Belgiums move upholds the freedom of choice among its citizens.

The US government should not interfere with personal decisions that directly affect its citizens. An attempt to meddle in this issue has been viewed as a possible way of contravening an individuals beliefs and practices. Abortion should not be of foremost concern or debatable in the US but be left for women and their husbands to discuss in private places. It has also been noted that funding abortion has made taxpayers spend millions of dollars annually. Abortion, therefore, should be left to a woman to decide whether to perform it or not.

Works Cited

Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Pew Research Center, 19 Nov. 2009. Web.

Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate. Policymic.com. Policymic Inc., n.d. Web.

Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). ACLU, n.d. Web.

Burneson, Steven. Polar Politics: Abortion should not be an issue considered by government . CollegiateTimes.com. Educational Media Company, 17 Dec. 2012. Web.

Cox, William John. Abortion: The Governments Choice? Womens Reproductive Rights in the New America. Global Research. Global Research, 27 Oct. 2008. Web.

History of Abortion. Feminist.com. Touchstone, n.d. Web. Libertarianism. Libertarianism. The Advocates for Self-Government, n.d. Web.

Robinson, Ba . U.S. LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION. All about religious tolerance: the ReligiousTolerance.org web site. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 31 Jan. 2008. Web.

Sherratt, Timothy. Religion, Abortion and the Role of Government. Capital Commentary | Center for Public Justice. Center for Public Justice, 19 Oct. 2012. Web.

Torre, Sarah. Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Abortions and Government Funding. The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation |. N.p., 9 Jan. 2013. Web.

Thesis

The issue of abortion is controversial in numerous contexts. Even though it receives criticism from various groups, women should be allowed to decide on whether to abort or not. This should be a personal choice. This paper supports the issue of abortion based on research and critical scrutiny of the matter. However, other opposing arguments have been provided to defend why abortion should be prohibited.

Women who have ever had unplanned pregnancy can testify why abortion should be legalized. Most people perceive fetus as a living human being. Hence, it is murderous to kill a fellow human being regardless of his or her age (Procon.org., 2012). Nonetheless, abortion should be legalized because it is every womans choice to have a child or not.

Argument

Some women conceive accidentally; however, it should be their choice whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not. People should be given chance to exercise their personal rights and make critical decisions that concerns life. As stated in the American Journal of Psychiatry, abortion is a medical procedure.

In this context, physicians should respect the patients right to freedom of choice. Meaning that no matter the stance on the clinic, the public, or the government, it is every womans right to choose whether or not to give birth. External influences are not necessary in this context. This is a vital consideration.

Women should not practice abortion just because they do not want to take responsibility for their actions. However, making abortion illegal will make people to raise children when they are not prepared to do so. Some women or parents are not ready to provide their children with all the love and development they deserve.

The child will be raised in an unloving home and become a person who does not know how to love. Perhaps, such children might develop unwanted behaviors or become criminals. Statistics indicate that most pregnancies are unintended. Pregnancy requires well-scrutinized considerations, preparation, as well as planning.

Logically, why illegalize something that may help a person so much? Concurrently, children conceived out of rape or incest can be considered highly unwanted. It is vital to establish, ratify, and embrace modest abortion reforms to have a significant effect on the matter. If the child is unwanted by the person who is supposed to love him or her the most, why would you force someone into this circumstance?

No one should endure the shame and humiliation of the traumatic event of rape or incest by bearing and rearing child who was the outcome of it (Procon.org., 2012). If a mother is denied an abortion due to its illegality, that mother then will be forced to go through the pregnancy, the labor, the birth, and the raising of an unwanted child. What a disgrace?

Another reason why abortion should be legalized is that women still sneak to do it even if it has been illegalized. Consequently, some go to unspecialized health parctioners who do not do it perfectly and successfully. In fact, some women have died due to unsuccessful abortion attempts.

Due to the illegality of abortion, some women or ladies resort to quacks who are barely specialized in executing abortion processes. Such deaths and health complications can be averted if only abortion is legalized (Ainsworth & Hall, 2011).

Additionally, it is improper to use contraceptives due to health complications they might create. Precisely, people should be allowed to abort if conditions demand so. The fact that abortion still occurs even when it has been illegalized should be a global concern. Governments should allow citizens to make their own choices regarding the matter.

Another factor is that some minors (young girls) conceive while still studying. This occurs either at elementary school level, secondary, or college levels. Evidently, such students are not ready to be parents. They must first pursue their educational ambitions for a better future.

However, it is obvious that once a young girl (who is still studying) is pregnant; her educational ambitions might be doomed. In fact, some end up dropping out of school. Hence, illegalizing abortion is a hindrance to girl child education. People must accept that mature ladies can conceive and become pregnant at any time provided they play an unprotected sex.

This is a considerable provision when scrutinized critically. It is vital to understand the provisions of abortion before rendering it illegal. Notably, institutions and human rights lobby groups are always fighting against birth control and abortions. However, it is vital to ask whether the morning after pill is included in this controversy?

Is it because the concerned ladies do not know that they are pregnant yet, or is this the reckless and careless behavior of a female? No one talks about this point; however, it is believable that if you can recklessly have sex and then take a morning after pill the following day, why not make that the illegal form of birth control (Weitz, 2010).. Abortion should be legalized in order to formalize the entire process.

Women should be at liberty to make choices on whether to carry a baby to term or not. After all, they are the ones who will be burdened by the entire pregnancy atrocities. Everybody needs a child and it is not anyones desire to kill; however, a situation might force.

Another argument why abortion should be legalized regards the health conditions of some women. One might conceive; however, her health status might not allow her to carry the baby to term. Either, she can die or undergo an acute miscarriage. This might interfere with her life despite the need to carry the pregnancy for the expected 9 months. Just think of the deaths that would occur if abortions were illegalized.

One would not only be killing the child but the mother also. Although the notion of women using contraceptives is a good one; however, not all women can afford contraceptives so often. So what happens when it comes to not being careless but being unable to afford the medical bill regarding maternity postnatal services?

Another validation for abortion is that it gives parents the right not give birth to children with health defects such as Down syndrome and cystic fibrosis. Anyway, why should parents have a child with these conditions? No parent or child should be forced to go through that. This is a considerable provision in the context of pregnancy and birth control. Motherhood should never be a punishment.

One should indulge in it when ready both psychologically and physically. Concurrently, abortion is usable as a population control method. If a person is not ready to have a child, both mentally and financially, having an unintended child can lead to numerous atrocities.

These incorporate malnutrition, lack of proper medical attention, poor educational services, and starvation. Precisely, one cannot provide sufficiently for the concerned child.

Counter-thesis and counter-argument

Abortion is illegal since it denies the fetus a chance to live. It is improper to legalize abortion as demanded previously. This is a transgression of the highest order. In fact, it is not only a crime but a murder also. It is advisable to carry pregnancy to term so as to bring forth a new life.

Additionally, abortion might kill the mother if not well executed. Hence, why should someone risk aborting a child in order to die in return? In fact, one should not engage in unprotected sex to get pregnant and abort in return. This is a considerable provision in various contexts. It is vital to agree that rearing unwanted children might be humiliating; nonetheless, it is improper to abort a life.

This is not only malicious but criminal in nature. Precisely, abortion should be illegalized in various contexts. Religious views such as the 6^th commandment of the Old Testament (Thou shall not kill), plays a critical part in the views of pro-life representatives.

There are also thousands of deaths that stem from unsafe abortions that happen yearly as mentioned earlier. Abortion should be illegalized while women should be urged to use contraceptives as the recommended birth control measure.

Additionally, statistics has it that about 10% of the 1.6 million women experience cruel emotional ordeal after aborting (Cung, 2012). This is due to the fact that abortion causes various health complications to the concerned mothers. For instance, it is possible to experience damaged cervix, pierced uterus, hemorrhage, as well as other acute infections associated with the process.

Some mothers cannot even give birth again in the future. Another concern is that a baby can survive an abortion and this might be devastating to the mother. Concurrently, the baby might develop some deformities due to the attempted murder. Such incidences are difficult to handle.

In fact, there would not be the thousands of maternal deaths every year if abortions were legal and women were not afraid to get a safe and healthy abortion.

It is arguable whether those who abort should receive the same penalty that they give the baby (killing innocent beings). Abortion can also lead to the killing of future leaders. For instance, who knows what the aborted child would have been in case he or she was given a chance to live?

Response to counter-thesis

Agreeably, all arguments supporting the illegalization of abortion are obsolete and doomed. For example, there are modernized health facilities that can be used to carry out the entire process. This thwarts the fact that abortion can cause severe health complications. The most important thing is that abortion should be practiced in designated health facilities upon legalization.

The whole process can be done safely minus risking the mothers life (Durand, 2009). Additionally, illegalizing abortion will not avert the vice absolutely. In fact, some women will slither to do it illegally, which is even worse. This is a considerable provision in various contexts. It is vital to agree that rearing unwanted children might be humiliating; nonetheless, it is improper to abort a life.

References

Ainsworth, S. & Hall, T. (2011). Abortion politics in congress: Strategic incrementalism and policy change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cung, J. (2012). Abortion: Why it should be Illegal. Web.

Durand, J. (2009). The abortion: Before I formed you, I knew you. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

ProCon.org. (2012). Abortion. Web.

Weitz, T. (2010). Rethinking the Mantra that Abortion Should be Safe, Legal and Rare. Journal of Womens History.161(1), 172,236.

Introduction

The philosophical discussion about the relationship between the right to life and bodily autonomy has become especially aggravated in the modern world. The current development of society has reached such a level that people can both provide the opportunity to have a safe abortion and give the born child everything necessary for survival.

Discussion

In this philosophical debate, both sides use biological or rights-based arguments. The argument is that the pro-choice stance is inherently pro-life. The main philosophical reasoning is that it seeks to protect the health of a mother and her right to bring life on her terms since life is not only about birth but the well-being of existence as well. The analytical aspect of the debate appeals to the advancement of medicine. Pro-choicers indicate that modern abortion devices are safe and do not harm a womans health (Cameron, 2018). Thus, abortion does not violate womens right to life and supports the concept of bodily autonomy. Since there are more opportunities to maintain viability, the fetus is earlier in perspective than a human being.

The philosophical principle of interest is respecting persons, which encompasses bodily autonomy, freedom of choice, and liberty. Under this framework, pro-choice individuals focus on the value of a womans life and health, stating that no one has the right to use someone elses body to maintain their own life (Czachorowski, 2018). Thus, in this argument, the personal interests of the two sides collide, each of which claims the right to life and disposal of its own body. Deliberately induced abortion is a difficult debatable topic in which one type of argument can be turned in favor of both sides.

Conclusion

In conclusion, using factual information and logical arguments from medicine and philosophy, people come to very different conclusions about the possibility or impossibility of an abortion. This probably means that the solution to this problem lies in a compromise between the parties since both have valid evidence for their point of view.

References

Cameron, S. (2018). Recent advances in improving the effectiveness and reducing the complications of abortion. F1000Research, 7, 1881.

Czachorowski, M. (2018). Abortion in the universal encyclopedia of philosophy. Studia Gilsoniana, 7(4), 567-578.

Canada is among the few countries in the west that has no law governing abortion. The implication is that it is not yet clear whether abortion is an illegal or a legal act according to the Canadian constitution and criminal code. In other words, Canada remains as the only state in the developed world where there is no law which regulates abortion.

The conservative government handling this contentious issue can be seen as one dealt with utmost cowardice (Herald 2008). Despite the lack of a clear abortion law, abortion in Canada is relatively low in comparison with other nations that have adopted abortion laws (Arthur 2008).

Furthermore, the rates of abortion have been decreasing since 1999 although one can be sentenced if found to have committed the act (Arthur 2008). This begs the question, should Canada have an abortion law? The research paper is an attempt to determine whether an abortion law is required in Canada, or not.

The major reason why abortion laws are enacted is to limit the number of procured abortions. According to Arthur (2008), abortions can be reduced either through liberalization or repealing anti abortion laws. In other cases, it is used to promote feminism or female rights to have a choice to decide whether they can have a child or they can terminate the pregnancy.

In the case of Canada, this has not been clearly stated under the current law since abortion law that existed previously was deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1988.

However, abortion is still carried out under certain circumstances such as when sex selection is being conducted or when the life of the mother is in grave danger (Clarke 2009). In Canada, sex selection is not prohibited but it becomes illegal when reproductive technology is applied.

Compared with other developed nations like the U. S there is need to at least have an abortion law that defines the extremes under which it can be carried. In most of the developed states, abortion laws have been enhanced to cater for the public health reasons since no matter the presence of law or risks involved, women cannot be stopped from carrying out abortions.

Illegal abortions kill both the unborn baby and even the mothers. Despite the campaigns by anti-abortion movements, the fact remains that women die because of illegal abortion and there is need to help reduce the number through offer of better medical services. When compared to other countries in Europe which have abortion laws, the rate is almost the same.

For instance, Europe has an abortion rate of 12% compared to Canada which has a rate of 14.1% annually (Arthur 2009). The comparison between the two countries one with abortion law and another without is more or less the same. Contrasted to US, Canada is by far well since it has the lowest levels of abortion.

Like any other government in the world, the Canadian government has the obligation to protect anything that has intrinsic value. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus lacks legal status compared to a person and as a result it lacks intrinsic rights, the court did not clear out whether a fetus lacks any intrinsic value like any other human being (Ben-Ami 4).

In this line of thought, it can be argued that there is the need to protect a fetus since it has an intrinsic value like any other human being. From a scientific point of view, a baby that is a few hours to be born and one that has already been born have no cognitive or biological differences hence all need protection from the state. This can only be realized through a law which may either be prohibitive or allows abortion as well.

A major scientific fact is that life the life of a human being starts at conception and there is no doubt about that (4). Rather than questioning the morality of the same or arguing when the life begins, a focus should be on whether the unborn child has any value or has the right to live.

From a moral point of view, the society or the state has the duty to provide protection. The life of a fetus is of public interest and under the auspices of the Criminal Code; the Parliament is compelled to offer protection to that which is of public interest.

Just like Sweden, abortions under the physicians watch in Canada are carried in the first trimester of the pregnancy (Ben-Ami 4). In addition, after every twenty weeks, 0.4% of all abortions take place.

This seems like a small figure but supposing that 100,000 abortions were carried annually, 400 potentially viable babies would be aborted. This is an indication that despite the silence by the state to have an abortion law, abortion is still practiced under the medical circumstances despite the lack of abortion laws.

According to Ben-Ami (1), a Quebec woman was sentenced 18 months because she had left a newborn baby in the woods to die. She was sentenced on a lesser charge of manslaughter instead of first degree murder since there was no evidence that she had the intention to kill the baby.

Given that the mother carried abortion of the same child in hospital even during delivery, she would be acquitted and not prosecuted. In another scenario, if the doctor or physicians killed the new born under unclear circumstances, the medical practice license would be provoked and the doctor would go free.

All three situations are all comparable since a child was to be killed. Therefore, an abortion law would be necessary to put limit on the extent into or circumstances under which abortion should be carried or allowed. This would ensure that all people are treated the same even if they are medical practitioners or mothers.

Compared with France, abortion in both states is carried to safeguard the life of the mother in case it is proven to be in danger. However, in France abortion law has been put into place unlike in Canada where no multi-disciplinary is required to certify that the condition of the mother is in danger and that an abortion would be necessary.

It would be ethical if a law dictated the medical conditions under which abortion should be carried instead of leaving the law in the arms of independent doctor or physician to solely decide. Any liberal democracy in the world except Canada protects the lives of the unborn. Despite the fact that laws differ from one state to another, protection of the lives of others even if born or unborn is a universal obligation which should not question the morality of the act.

Whichever the side one decides to take regarding the issue of abortion, the fact remains that abortion is still carried out in Canada. There still remains the need to continue with the debate and draw from the examples of some of the developed countries so as to enact abortion laws which specifies time in which abortion could be carried (Herald 1).

This would strike a balance between both sides or between the rights and the interests of Canadians which is inclusive of the unborn babies. The absence of a coherent national policy on abortion leads to consequences which have effects on people in Canada.

Works Cited

Arthur, Joyce. Canada Does Not Need an Abortion Law. 2008. Web.

Ben-Ami, Joseph 2008, Why Canada Needs an Abortion Policy. Web.

Clarke, Stephen. Sex Selection & Abortion: Canada. 2009. Web.

Herald, Calgary. Killing Abortion Debate Unhealthy. 2008. Web.

Introduction

Abortion has always been a controversial subject for Americans. This issue clashes with the dominant faith of many U.S. households, which is why some of those in power make continuous attempts to limit or completely take away a womans right to end pregnancy. After all, it is evident that people are extremely passionate about their beliefs, promoting them to fight for what they believe is right with much passion and dedication. Thus, the actions of Texas officials signing by into action Senate Bill 8, known simply as the Texas Abortion Law, are understandable and them smiling for a photo while doing so could even be regarded as admirable if not for the fact that the law is an assault on womens reproductive rights.

In the month of November, justices of the Supreme Court demonstrated skepticism regarding Senate Bill 8. According to numerous reports, they scrutinized the structure of the law itself, which created a sort of bounty system for those willing to sue others for assisting with abortion after fetal heartbeat was detected (Gonchar, 2021; Moore & Chamberlain, 2021). With the Supreme Court signaling such skepticism and hinting at allowing abortion providers and activists to challenge the law, the interest in the constitutionality and ethical adequacy of Senate Bill 8 is rightfully justified. The purpose of this paper is to examine the structure and implications of the Texas Abortion Law in order to demonstrate its flaws. Senate Bill 8 is an unconstitutional law, which attempts to manipulate the loopholes in the United States legislation to restrict womens reproductive rights, while disregarding their actual biology.

Background

In order to move further into the discussion of the primary issues surrounding the Texas Abortion Law, it is imperative to delve deeper into what Senate Bill 8 actually is and how it functions. As of September 1, 2021, abortion at a point when the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected, which is roughly 6 weeks, is considered illegal (Cohen et al., 2021). This is the direct result of the enactment of the Texas Heartbeat Act, or simply Senate Bill 8. The Act prohibits abortion once the heartbeat can be detected with no exceptions for victims of rape, domestic abuse, or incest (Cohen et al., 2021). The only exception, which would allow a woman to get an abortion past the point of detectable heartbeat is a medical emergency. There is added controversy surrounding the status of the law, although there is common ground in admitting that it provides the authorities with the ability to ban abortion de facto, without any of the risks of the de jure. The Texas Abortion Law took effect only after the Supreme Court decided not to enjoin it. September 1 has truly become a point in history of womens rights, abortion legislation, and reproductive health as, prior to this day, abortions had been allowed after 6 weeks: up to 20 weeks, in fact (Cohen et al., 2021). The enactment of the Bill and the fact that the law actually went into effect only followed an existing trend in strict abortion legislature seen in other conservative states.

Texas Abortion Law: Anti-Privacy and Pro-Secrecy

Although the entirety of the Texas Abortion Law is a subject of much curiosity, the most interesting part about it is arguably the conditions of its enforcement. The main mechanism the law uses to enforce the new restrictions is deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so (Gonchar, 2021, para. 6). Speaking in the terms of the Old West, a bounty is now offered to each private citizen willing to become some sort of vigilante and reveal incriminating information about those involved in performing an abortion after the point, at which the heartbeat can be detected. If such an attempt at suing someone for assisting in an illegal abortion is successful, the plaintiff gets $10,000 in cash as a reward (Lindvall, 2021). If not, they do not even have to pay the legal fees of the defendant. As a result, women who cannot afford to get an abortion out of state are exceptionally vulnerable as are those involved in the procedure. Medics, nurses, anaesthesiologists, insurance providers, and even taxi drivers who give a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic past the 6-week point face the liability to suits.

As a consequence of such enforcement procedures, a womans right to privacy is stripped away from her. By trying to manipulate the loopholes of the existing legislature and the Supreme Court precedent of 1973, Texas officials have challenged, if not eliminated, a womans right to privacy. The same privacy, which is regarded so highly and cited as the foundation of America as a nation by the same conservative officials who have been Senate Bill 8s passionate proponents. There has not yet been a case to demonstrate the exact procedure of someone suing another for assisting with an illegal abortion as defined by the Texas Heartbeat Act. However, it is rational to assume that in order to succeed in their complaint, a plaintiff must prove that an individual or an organization they are suing knowingly helped with an abortion of a fetus that had a detectable heartbeat.

This clearly suggests that the person bringing the claim has to obtain evidence of the woman being pregnant (private information) and roughly 6 weeks passing after her last period (extremely sensitive private information). As a result, although plaintiffs do not directly sue pregnant women themselves and make them pay out $10,000, this does not mean that they do not receive punishment. The bounty system encourages citizens, particularly a womans close friends or relatives, to turn her in and share the most intimate and vulnerable parts of her life for an incentive. Womens privacy is in danger as those living in Texas and outside its borders are offered a hefty reward for essentially spying on and then betraying women in need of an abortion.

Another aspect of the Laws harmful effect on womens privacy is secrecy, while privacy and secrecy may be regarded as similar terms, it is important to make a distinction in order to make an argument in this particular instance. Privacy is an inherently empowering term, while secrecy is more of a compulsory one since women have to be constantly aware of their relationships and experiences with each person in fear of being exposed and their reputation shattered. It is evident that the Texas Abortion Law encourages women to take on the burden of keeping their pregnancy a secret for as long as they can, which can be a source of additional mental and emotional stress.

Another element to the secrecy reinforced by the Texas Abortion Law is the fact that women themselves cannot actually be sued. The proponents of the Bill argue that this decision is intentional since the officials do not want to punish women themselves but only those assisting them in getting an illegal abortion. However, while it is true that there is intent behind the decision to formally exclude women from the punishment equation, it may lie in not wanting to see women in courtrooms, have visible evidence of how upset or enraged they are. After all, no one wants to see the consequences of their actions imprinted in the lives of a neighbor, a sister, or a teacher. No one wants to admit that abortions are common to the point of the towns beloved mail woman deciding on one. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2020) report that in the period between 2009 and 2018, a total of 614,820 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 189 abortions per 1,000 live births (para. 1). If Texas authorities really cared about not only keeping women out of court but protecting their privacy as well, they would not enable fellow citizens to drag women into the public eye, which would inevitably make them a subject of harassment.

Texas Abortion Law: Unconstitutionality

Some might argue that the Texas Abortion Law is entirely lawful and has no issues in regards to its jurisdiction. They might cite the Supreme Courts decision to decline to enjoin the Texas Heartbeat Act as confirmation of the laws constitutionality. However, there are two important things that make the Texas Abortion Ban unconstitutional. Firstly, it is clearly a scheme to nullify womens constitutional rights granted under the long-standing Supreme Court precedent of Roe v. Wade. Senate Bill 8 overrides a landmark Supreme Court decision of 1973. Roe v. Wade is a case that has established it legal to seek pre-viability abortion. Alyssa Endres, a columnist at the Huntington News, notes that, in the case of the Texas Abortion Ban, Texas law is superseding federal law, which is in direct opposition to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, ultimately rendering the anti-abortion law unconstitutional in itself (para. 4). Furthermore, Senate Bill 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing upon the autonomy of women in the U.S. The right to personal autonomy is protected by the first 13 amendments. With the Texas Abortion Law in action, women in Texas no longer have the autonomy to their own bodies, which is a basic human right.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is apparent that the Texas Abortion Law is flawed and manipulative as the main goals of its proponents have been to do what they deem is best for Texas by finding loopholes in the existing legislature aimed at protecting womens reproductive rights. The bounty system, which is chosen to ensure the laws enforcement, clearly infringes upon womens right to privacy. It encourages fellow citizens and those closest to women finding themselves in a vulnerable position of having an unwanted pregnancy to make the matters of their private life the subject of public scrutiny. Furthermore, the law also encourages women to commit to an existence of secrecy as anyone they might share their sensitive information with might be a potential danger. The Texas Abortion Ban is unconstitutional as it directly infringes upon the right to personal autonomy each American citizen should have, as underlined in the U.S. Constitution. Apart from that, it overrides an existing Supreme Court precedent. Overall, the controversy surrounding Texas Abortion Law is clearly justified as this law is not only unconstitutional but discriminatory and manipulative.

References

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2020). CDCs abortion surveillance system FAQs. CDC. Web.

Cohen, I. G, Adashi, E. Y, & Gostin, L. O. (2021). The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB8), and the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade? JAMA, 326(15), 14731474. Web.

Endres, A. (2021). Column: Texas new abortion law is unconstitutional.The Huntington News. Web.

Gonchar, M.. (2021). Lesson of the day: Answers to questions about the Texas Abortion Law.The New York Times. Web.

Lindvall, A. J. (2021). Texas, abortion, and state action. SMU Law Review, 74(139). Web.

Moore, M., & Chamberlain, S. (2021). Supreme Court justices scrutinize Texas heartbeat law banning most abortions.New York Post. Web.

Among the challenges which divide civilizations in the 21^st century, that of abortion is clearly one of the most bothersome. Almost on daily instances, societies are bombarded with torrents of arguments about the admissibility or rejection of abortion from both sides of the divide.

Crowds demonstrate and politicians lay bare their facts in popular discussion forums, but the debate has refused to fade away, in part, due to the fact that the practice of abortion affects all ethnic, racial and social economic groups (Franz & Reardon, 1992). Among other things, the present paper intends to explicitly discuss the negative effects of abortion on teenagers and some of the perspectives that anti-abortion women projects in the strongly contested debate.

Abortion, which can be described as the untimely annihilation of the life of an unborn child, is as old as mankind. It is a well known fact that a significant percentage of unwanted and untimely pregnancies occur among teenagers aged between 10 and 19 years.

In the United States, for example, about a fifth of all abortions taking place in recent years are unfortunately performed on adolescents (Sobie & Reardon, 2001). Many of these teenagers, however, decide to undergo the abortion procedure for lack of any other acceptable solution to an already excruciating situation.

Some liberalists have been at the forefront in advocating for women to be accorded exclusive rights to abort by basing their facts on the premise that abortion is a largely private matter (Warren & Harvey, 2010), but their arguments have not won the hearts of many individuals who are of the opinion that abortion is not only morally, legally and spiritually wrong, but it impedes on some of the basic rights of the unborn such as the right to life and the freedom of expression. In this respect, securing an abortion is the wrong way to go for teenagers who, knowingly or unknowingly, get pregnant.

Teenagers are in most occasions prevailed upon by their parents, boyfriends and peers to secure abortion to avoid the social, financial and ethical ramifications that comes with bearing a child out of wedlock. Such consequences may include but not limited to: dropping out of school, stigmatization, inability to take care of the child, cultural and public policy attitudes, fear of friendship loss, and possible loss of career and future (Franz & Reardon, 1992; Sobie & Reardon, 2001).

However, the very idea of forcing adolescent girls to secure abortions so as to avoid the above mentioned consequences is inherently wrong and morally questionable. Indeed, Franz & Reardon (1992) postulates that &adolescents are still developmentally immature in various respects, and this immaturity affects sexual decision making (p. 163).

Another important fact that is closely related to the above is that most teenagers are faced with a multiplicity of limitations in their ability to make plausible healthcare decisions. Such limitations, according to Franz & Reardon (1992), include a real incapability to predict potential outcomes, inability to recognize possible risks of abortion, and the inability to make coherent and articulate decisions regarding abortion.

It should also not be forgotten that adolescence is a highly unstable phase of life and, as such, the very essence of securing an abortion against a backdrop of the above mentioned factors will certainly lead to more social, emotional and health problems for the adolescents. In consequence, adolescents should only be guided to secure abortions if and only if the health of the mother is at utmost risk. Any other explanation as to why adolescents should be allowed to secure abortions is, in my view, fallacious.

Adolescents are a predominantly significant population to reflect on with respect to the possible negative effects of abortion. As proposed by Sobie & Reardon (2001) and Franz & Reardon (1992), teenage abortion has been positively associated with a broad spectrum of physical, emotional and psychological challenges, including guilt conscience, suicide attempts, emotional stress, drug and alcohol abuse, suicidal ideation, anxiety, failure or malfunction of the executive ego function and other self-destructive behaviours.

Of importance to this discussion is the fact that compared to women who secure abortions at an older age, women who undergo abortions in their teen years are notably more likely to experience severe emotional imbalances that are directly linked to their abortions (Sobie & Reardon, 2001; Elliot Institute, 1991).

Sobie & Reardon (2001) also postulates that compared to women who secure abortions at an older age, adolescents are more likely to undergo abortions due to pressure from parents, boyfriends and their peers, putting them at an elevated risk of undesirable psychological effects.

The situation is not helped by the fact that adolescents suffer from decision-making problems, massive denial, depression, low self-esteem and incapability to project their own feelings and perceptions into the future (Franz & Reardon, 1992; Warren & Harvey, 2010). In consequence, teen abortion can only be related to uncomfortable feelings of regret, guilt, hopelessness, anxiety, and an elongated sense of despair.

At a social level, studies have demonstrated that &teenage aborters [are] more likely to report severe nightmares following abortion and to score higher on scales measuring antisocial traits, paranoia, drug abuse and psychotic delusions than older aborters (Sobie & Reardon, 2001, p. 1).

Such undesirable outcomes, in my view, have the capacity to ruin not only the future social life of teenagers, but also their careers and social standing in society. It is interesting to note that a significant number of adolescents who undergo abortions are unable to retain a healthy psychological and social adaptive process after the procedures, and many persist to recreate their ordeal and distress through a cycle of replicate pregnancies and abortions.

One study cited by Sobie & Reardon (2001) revealed that on average, three-fifths of adolescents who had procured an abortion became pregnant again within 15 months. Such a trend impairs the teenagers individual, social and professional development, not mentioning that it renders them irrelevant to society.

Abortions have many adverse effects when evaluated from a health perspective. Intense blood loss during the procedure, for instance, can occasion diversion of blood flow to vital body organs, resulting in shock or death of the mother. Abortions also occasion the dilation of canal of the cervix, exposing delicate organs such as the uterus and the fallopian tubes to bacterial infection. The tools used for abortion can perforate the uterus, in the process causing injury, bacterial invasion, and extensive bleeding (Franz & Reardon, 1992).

According to the authors, there exists a wide body of literature to demonstrate that adolescents who have abortions in their first pregnancies not only increase their chances of getting breast cancer by 50 percent, but they become vulnerable to future pregnancy failure by 45 percent. These statistics paint a grim picture for adolescents who go ahead to procure abortions.

Still, other studies have found a positive correlation between teen abortions and premature births, personality changes, tubal pregnancy, unregulated monthly flow, sterility, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, difficulty grieving, and enhanced tendency toward violence, among other negative outcomes (Elliot Institute, 1991).

Anti-abortionists have projected a number of arguments to counter the liberalists offensive regarding the broad topic of abortion. Women anti-abortionists, in particular, have been most vocal in criticizing the argument on the premise that life is God-given and therefore all people must respect the sanctity of life.

Other women argue that securing abortions for adolescents is not part of the solution; rather it is part of the problem that society must deal with through advocating ethical and moral principles as well as ensuring that teenagers have the right kind of information to enable them make informed choices on their health and wellbeing (Stone & Waszak, 1992).

Still, other women argue from the standpoint that it is not only morally unacceptable for parents to secure abortions for their teenage daughters merely because they want to evade the embarrassment and deficiencies related to premarital births, but it is also emotionally and spiritually unjustifiable from a humanistic perspective.

To conclude, it is worth noting that abortion injures women in critical ways since it is not merely a procedure of evacuating what is inside the uterus, but the untimely ending of human life in gory circumstances. The psychological, social, physical and emotional challenges presented by abortions have been discussed at length in this paper.

Adolescents, therefore, need to be provided with a platform where they can access the right kind of information regarding abortion to avoid the confusion about the options they have in the event they get an unintended pregnancy (Stone & Waszak, 1992). This way, the social fabric will be safeguarded, and our girls will have a brighter future.

Reference List

Elliot Institute. (1991). The after-effects of Abortion: Understanding the risks. Web.

Franz, W., & Reardon, D. (1992). Differential impact of abortion on adolescents and adults. Adolescence, 27(105), 161-172. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Sobie, A.R., & Reardon, D.C. (2001). The detrimental effects of adolescent abortion. The Post-Abortion Review, 9(1). Web.

Stone, R., & Waszak, C. (1992). Adolescent knowledge and attitudes about abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, 24(2), 52-57. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Warren, J.T., & Harvey, S.M. (2010). Do depression and low self-esteem follow abortion among adolescents? Evidence from a national study. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 42(4), 230-235. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.

Introduction

Abortion is defined as the termination of the life of a fetus while still in the mothers womb. The practice is not a new phenomenon in human life since many contemporary societies engaged in it in the past. Women have been in record for making decisions to carry out abortions or experiencing it under the influence of other individuals for a long period of time. In modern society, it is a controversial and hard subject to deal with.

Questions have been raised about who is most responsible in making the decision of procuring an abortion. Some people say that it is individuals who make the decision to carry out an abortion while others argue that it is the state. There are also questions regarding the circumstances that may lead to the procurement of an abortion. The practice continues to take place in developing countries under medical conditions that have been described as demanding.

However, the increase in technological advancements and changes in social set ups has led to the incorporation of abortion in modern health provisions. The practice has also been a source of political debate in some communities leading to lack of agreement on the place of a woman in the society and the freedom of an individual to make decisions without influence (Free dictionary 1). Abortion should be discouraged because it denies innocent children a chance to live.

Body of the Essay

It is shocking that approximately forty two million abortions are procured in a year with more than one hundred thousand taking place every day (Edlin & Golanty 176). Perhaps if people all over the world thought of these numbers in terms of the innocent lives lost they will change their perception and attitudes towards abortion. Another shocking reality about abortion is that most of the abortion cases take place in developing countries as opposed to developed countries.

This may be explained by the challenges people in developing countries face and the fact that people in these countries live poverty. It therefore follows that raising up a child without proper resources may be a big burden. There are thousands of women who have no children after having struggled for many years to get them. The puzzling question then remains why a woman who gets pregnant should decide of procuring an abortion.

This is a question whose answer has remained elusive for a long period of time. As if this is not enough, myriads of cases of women who die performing abortion are recorded every year. Despite these facts about abortion, women continue to engage in the act. This clearly indicates that there are intricate issues related to abortion that require investigation.

To begin with, the criterion used by many to determine the legality and morality of abortion depends on their views on whether life for the fetus begins right after conception or is achieved at some point as the fetus develops (Edlin & Golanty, 210).

Majority of those who oppose abortion on moral grounds argue that the fetus is either human or has the potential of becoming a human being hence it should not be deprived of life. Killing the fetus is therefore tantamount to committing murder which is unacceptable in all realms and under whatever circumstances.

Life begins at conception since the fetus has all the characteristics of a living being. It has a heart, it breathes, and it feeds and does every other thing that a human being does. If the argument was that a fetus gains life later in life, then it would mean that a child is born lifeless and acquires life later which is not the case. This makes the fetus have all the rights that fully grown human beings have and nobody should have the privilege of taking its life.

Secondly, some women use many unjustified debates on abortion to continue with the practice but no debate is justified enough to defend abortion. Any woman who engages in activities that will result in pregnancy should be ready to take responsibility for her actions and take care of the un-born baby till birth. Procuring an abortion is an indication that a woman is not ready to take responsibility for their own actions.

Some women advance unjustified reasons in an attempt to justify carrying out abortion. For example, some of them say that they are young or they are not in stable relationships. Any woman who engages in sexual activities is aware of the possibilities of getting pregnant. Being young should give a woman all reasons to be morally responsible and avoid irresponsible sexual behavior rather than using age as an excuse to carry out abortion.

Similarly, if a woman is in an unstable relationship, this should be a guiding principle that personal responsibility is of great value. Getting pregnant should be taken seriously because there are thousands of women who cannot bear children due to different reasons and wish they could conceive. Abortion should therefore be unheard of and in case of unwanted pregnancies, women should be ready to take full responsibility.

Thirdly, abortion should be completely discouraged because of the serious physical and health problems to the mother associated with the act. One of the negative impacts it has on women is that it increases the chances of experiencing miscarriages in the future.

The other danger associated with abortion is that it poses a danger to the reproductive system of women in the future. In addition, abortion is responsible for causing infertility or ectopic pregnancies as a result of damage caused to the neighboring organs during the process. This complication causes the baby to develop in the fallopian tubes due to the damage to the organs.

Moreover, termination of a first pregnancy can expose women to the risk of getting breast cancer later in life. When a pregnancy is terminated through an abortion, the breast tissues of a woman are left in a stimulated condition which increases development of cancer (Lawlor 9). These health risks to the health of a woman make abortion a dangerous process which should be encouraged.

Conclusion

Abortion is a highly contested debate with many parties attempting to give justifications for carrying out the act. Some women give reasons of being young while others excuse themselves for being in unstable relationships. Whichever reasons they give, abortion remains a morally unacceptable procedure. The fetus is a living thing and nobody should terminate life since it is wrong both biblically and morally.

There are different techniques used to carry out the procedure such as the hook, salt poisoning among other procedures. Most of the techniques used pose a health risk to the mother after procedure. It is interesting that some women who carry out abortion fail to get other children in their lives and live to regret their decisions of carrying out abortion. Abortion is morally and legally unacceptable and should be discouraged.

Works Cited

Edlin, Gordon and Eric Golanty. Essentials for health and wellness. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2000. Print

Edlin,Gordon and Eric Golanty. Health and Wellness. New York: Jones and Bartlett, 2004.Print

Freedictionary. Abortion. 2011. Web.

Lawlor, Jessica. Long Term Physiological and Psychological Effects of Abortion on Women. n.d. Web.

Abortion has been a controversial issue for a long time, and it has been tried to limit the numbers of abortions that women undergo due to any reasons. However, the attempts aimed at erecting barriers to gaining the abortion service, despite their popularity among various legislators, are rather notorious in their outcomes. The current paper discusses the issue of anti-abortion legislation in the state of Texas. The crux of this legislation is examined, its results are considered, and possible alternatives to such legal provisions are touched upon.

An Overview of Legal Provisions Pertaining to Abortions in the State of Texas, and of the Effect of These Provisions on the Availability of Abortion Services

Currently, there are a number of laws in the state of Texas which restrict the provision of abortion services for the population. It is stated that much of the legislation related to abortions was adopted in 2013, as well as during several years prior to that year (Grossman et al., 2014). While initially the laws focused primarily on discouraging the consumers of these services by e.g. obliging physicians to supply their patients with a considerable amount of information related to abortions, in particular, telling them of the hazards and the possible negative outcomes which are associated with having an abortion, the legislation that was adopted later (mainly in 2013) was, to a large extent, aimed at limiting the provision of abortion services by imposing additional demands and restrictions on hospitals which offered abortion procedures to their clients, as well as requiring that patients follow more complicated procedures and utilize more expensive options of getting an abortion (Grossman et al., 2014).

As a result of more strict regulations pertaining to abortion provision, a number of clinics offering that service either were closed or stopped supplying it for the patients (Grossman et al., 2014). It is stressed that it had a particularly strong impact the hospitals outside large metropolitan areas, and 11 out of 13 clinics under the researchers observation were closed (Grossman et al., 2014). On the whole, the number of clinics which offered abortion service to their customers dropped by 46% within the span of only one year (Grossman et al., 2014).

The Effects of the Abortion Legislation on the Consumers of Abortion Services

It is not surprising that as a result of this, it became considerably more difficult for the dwellers of the state of Texas to gain abortion services (Grossman et al., 2014). In the wake of the new legislation, the number of abortions which were performed during 6 months after the new legal provisions came into effect reduced by 13% in comparison to the same period during the year preceding the moment when the discussed legislation was adopted (Fuentes et al., 2016).

In relation to this, the experiences of women seeking abortion services should also be discussed. It is stated that these individuals often experienced confusion due to the fact that the facilities where they were supposed to obtain an abortion stopped offering that service, and so these females were now forced to seek an alternative organization which would be able to carry out that medical procedure (Fuentes et al., 2016). It is also pointed out that the women who were unable to undergo an abortion at their originally intended facility now had to spend additional temporal and financial resources so as to get the service. They needed to travel to more distant clinics (Baum et al., 2015), which also resulted in compromised privacy of these individuals (Fuentes et al., 2016). Frustration was also a common consequence (Gerdts et al., 2016). Probably the worst of the outcomes was that a large percentage of these females were only able to get the abortion services considerably later than was originally intended; the average time of delay exceeded 1 week (Fuentes et al., 2016). In addition, in the study by Fuentes et al. (2016), a number of women who wished to gain abortion services are reported to have been unable to do so; several females considered undergoing a self-induced abortion, but an attempt to do so was made by none of them.

Therefore, it is clear that, while the new legislation did reduce the number of abortions that women had in Texas, that number was decreased primarily not because these persons reconsidered and made a decision not to undergo the procedure, but because they were simply unable to gain the abortion service due to the remoteness of abortion-providing facilities, as well as because of temporal, financial, or other limitations. In addition, the females who were still able to undergo the procedure of abortion were forced to do that at later stages of their pregnancy, which is known to be more detrimental to the health of a woman that the same procedure carried out at an earlier stage (Lowdermilk, Perry, Cashion, Alden, & Olshansky, 2016).

An Alternative Solution

It might be possible to state that the aim of the legislation adopted so as to limit the provision of abortion service for the population was to reduce the number of abortions carried out in the state of Texas. However, it is quite well-known that restricting the access to the procedure of abortion is often likely to result in negative outcomes for women seeking abortions; as has been noted above, the procedure was often delayed considerably due to the need of the patient to longer look for a supplier of the service. In fact, some of the females wishing to gain the abortion service might even make an attempt to obtain it from illegal providers, which may result in highly adverse consequences for the health of the individual that receives such a service.

Thus, it can be possible to conclude that the introduction of the legislation which limits the access of the population to the abortion service is rather likely to only result in outcomes that are worse for the patient. Instead of erecting barriers for women who seek abortion service, it would probably be better to lower the number of situations in which females do that. For instance, it is known that introducing sexual education at high school and improving the quality of such educational programs can lower the number of cases when an abortion is sought, especially among teenagers (Cherry & Dillon, 2014, p. 707). However, additional research may be needed in order to better determine the ways to prevent undesired pregnancies from occurring.

Conclusion

On the whole, the legislation pertaining to abortions in Texas is often aimed at restricting the provision of that service for the population, which results in limited access to this procedure. As a result, females are often forced to seek abortion providers for longer periods of time, and to undergo abortions at a later stage. Thus, the outcomes of such legal provisions might be stated to be mostly adverse. Instead of introducing such laws, it is recommended to consider ways which may lower the number of cases when an abortion is sought. This can be done by e.g. implementing sexual education at schools. Also, additional research may discover other ways to decrease the number of situations when an abortion is desired.

References

Baum, S., Grossman, D. A., Fuentes, L., White, K., Hopkins, K., & Potter, J. E. (2015). Womens experiences with abortion services in Texas in the wake of restrictive legislation. Contraception, 91(5), 428. Web.

Cherry, A., & Dillon, M. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook of adolescent pregnancy: Medical, psychosocial, and public health responses. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Fuentes, L., Lebenkoff, S., White, K., Gerdts, C., Hopkins, K., Potter, J. E., & Grossman, D. (2016). Womens experiences seeking abortion care shortly after the closure of clinics due to a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception, 93(4), 292-297. Web.

Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S. E.,&Potter, J. E. (2016). Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas.American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 857-864. Web.

Grossman, D., Baum, S., Fuentes, L., White, K., Hopkins, K., Stevenson, A., & Potter, J. E. (2014). Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception, 90(5), 496-501. Web.

Lowdermilk, D. L., Perry, S. E., Cashion, K., Alden, K. R., & Olshansky, E. F. (2016). Maternity and womens health care (11th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Introduction

It has been an order of the day to find women with unwanted pregnancies, therefore raising the question of what they should or should not do. On the other hand, it is not unusual to find teenagers as young as twelve being pregnant, and their parents especially the mothers feel that it is not the right time children become parents.

The above factors compel the concerned people, mostly the women, to choose abortion as the only best alternative to save the situation. However, there has never been an agreement as to whether abortion is really the best way to solve this problem that our women find themselves in, given that it amounts to taking of somebodys life.

Abortion Is Against the Right to Life

People have questioned the applicability of the right to life for everybody to the fetus that according to them should be considered as a human being (White 241). Life starts at conception as this is the only way of procreation available to human beings. Therefore, the argument that the fetus is not a human being is not sustainable.

The life of a human being should be taken care of no matter what stage it is in since it is still life. It should also be noted that other scientific methods of reproduction are not effective hence pregnancy is the only known way that continuity of mankind can be assured (Kaczor 153). Given the stand, abortion is therefore murder of a young innocent and helpless child who deserves a chance to live.

The Dependency Argument

The fetus depends on the mother for every means of survival in the early stages of life when most of the abortions take place. It is thus senseless for one to willingly and without any health danger to her life eliminate the fetus which is just like one of her body parts (Barrow 54). Additionally, it is irresponsible for one to avoid the duty of care that should be extended to the infant, and instead be the ones to end the life they are supposed to protect.

Health Repercussions

Non-feminists also argue that there are some dire health repercussions that come as a result of abortion. Cases have been reported where those who have secured abortion have been unable to bear children again, either due to destruction of the womb or because of the increased chances of miscarriage associated with abortion.

Abortion also is known to increase the probability of ectopic pregnancies and bring about the pelvic inflammatory diseases (Sherwin 332). It is therefore not quite correct if one just argues that abortion is the solution to save people from unwanted pregnancies yet in the end, the same people who are supposed to be saved are being exposed to various worse health conditions.

Unwanted Pregnancies Can Be Avoided

Another point of argument forwarded by non-feminists is that, with the level of technology nowadays, unwanted pregnancies can easily be avoided (Barrow 57). There are several ways of birth control that have been proved to be effective in prevention of pregnancies which could be applied and they do not include abortion. Even in cases where one has no ability over the use of birth control measures for example during rape, effective medical attention can ensure that the victim does not get pregnant.

The Fetus Is Separate from the Mother

Additionally, some people have argued that the fetus in the mothers body is just there for a period of time and after developing into a state that can permit it to live outside the womb it will exit. To this extent, they put it that the fetus is not part of the body of the pregnant mother so that she can have absolute control over it, but a separate possible human being whom she has been given the privilege of taking care of ((Valenti 145).

Abortion as a Womans Choice

It is a pity that those who oppose abortion rarely put into consideration the wellbeing of the pregnant women. Nobody ever questions why the women who want to secure an abortion would want to do so, as the feminists would have liked the case to be.

Though abortion is not legal women still find a way of securing it and it is legalization will not deter women from using crude means to secure it and lose their lives in the process. It can be depicted that women sometimes have worthy reasons of choosing abortion over any other option and they are not such immoral human beings as they are portrayed to be (Sherwin 336).

A school girl, who wants to advance her education for her future life, will have no option than abortion if she gets pregnant and her school does not allow pregnant ladies. There are also some employers who do not allow pregnant ladies to continue working with them as this interferes with their productivity, therefore leaving these women with no option than to secure an abortion if they get pregnant in order to protect their jobs.

To a greater extent many women have no control over whether to have sex or not, since we live in a male dominated world where men tend to force ladies on what to do and what not to do. Feminists also argue that birth control measures are not that effective to save the women from unwanted pregnancy and they have side effects to users.

These taken into consideration, women should be allowed to have a final word on whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy (Kaczor 94). It is, therefore, upon the woman to determine whether it is viable to keep the pregnancy or terminate it and not the role of a third party.

Morality and the Fetus

In the arguments of non-feminists, a woman has been relegated to take the position of a mere object of carrying the fetus which everybody, except the pregnant woman, is concerned about its welfare. The woman, therefore, is depicted as a very unreasonable and irresponsible person who seeks for any slightest opportunity to end the life of the fetus.

It is forgotten that, women are also moral beings who love their children very much and will always endeavor to take good and maximum care of their pregnancies and children (Valenti 121). Even the doctors, physicians and the courts have also taken this view and are trying as much as possible to come up with ways of taking care of the fetus disregarding the pregnant woman.

The fetus status has also been presented as independent rather than relational as is the case, since the fetus depends on the mother for survival until given birth and not the other way round. In addition, the fetus is given the moral perspective while it is known that a person becomes a moral person after independently interacting with others in the society and undergoing socialization, which can only happen after a child has been born.

Politics and Abortion

Giving the doctors the power to determine when an abortion is necessary is in a way allowing abortion but letting a third party have authority over how it should be carried out.Furthermore, the doctors have proofed to be among the people who are opposing abortion, and they have gone further to take the fetus as their patient in their labs assuming the very woman who carries the fetus (White 115).

This, together with the provisions in the law that hold doctors criminally liable if they help in carrying out abortions under unclear circumstances, deter the willingness of the doctors to help pregnant women who seek abortion.

Despite all the efforts that have been made to prevent abortion, it is a fact that it takes place in society and sometimes under very dangerous conditions.

Feminists therefore argue that, instead of wasting money trying to prevent abortion which people will end up securing, the money should be channeled to improving the health facilities and services that those who want to keep their pregnancy receive from the hospitals. On top of that, if women are empowered academically, socially and economically then they would have means of supporting themselves and cases of abortion would reduce.

Personal position

Feminists have good points that are agreeable, if people would stop the morality arguments and try to reason the points out. I agree that in some cases it is worthless to bring another life into this world just to suffer.

A woman who has no way of providing a better life even for herself should not be prevented from securing an abortion, because this is done in the best interest of both parties, as the child will not be left to suffer while the mother is also relieved of the burden that would have been unbearable (Sherwin 341). On the same note, the fetus lacks most of the characteristics that define a human being and therefore cannot be taken as a human being per se.

On the other hand, it is wrong to argue that men take advantage of pregnancy to oppress women because women do not get pregnant all at the same time to be taken advantage of. Besides, pregnancy is not inability such that once a woman becomes pregnant she is vulnerable to everything.

Moreover, the argument that birth control measures are not effective is misplaced, since it has medically been proofed that some birth control methods are up to 99% effective. Women should also not argue that they do not have the power of choosing when to have sex with their partners because clearly they have that power (Valenti 153). Furthermore, giving one the right to abortion is not same as giving her authority over her sexual and reproductive life, and therefore feminist should stop taking the two as one.

Conclusion

Abortion is still a subject of debate as to whether it should be legalized and be made available to those who demand for it. Many women seem to have good reasons as to why they would want to have an abortion, though it should be noted that it might be difficult to differentiate those who are genuine from masqueraders.

Despite the fact that it affects womens lives, leaving abortion entirely on their decision might lead to its misuse. Though laws have been enacted to guard the pregnant woman whose life might be in danger, all the concerned groups need to be consulted in order to come up with a solution that takes all the stakeholders into consideration.

Works Cited

Barrow, Robin. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy and Moral Education. London: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Kaczor, Christopher. The Ethics of Abortion: Womens Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. London: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Sherwin, Susan. Abortion through a Feminist Ethic Lens. Dialogue 30 (1991): 327-342. Print.

Valenti, Jessica. Full frontal feminism: a young womans guide to why feminism matters. New York: Seal press, 2007. Print.

White, James. Contemporary Moral Problems. Stanford: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Introduction

A recent change in medical practice suggests that women seeking an abortion should undergo specially designed abortion counseling. In some countries, this is mandatory and is meant to address critical factors which may be impacting the woman and her decision to undergo the abortion procedure. Furthermore, it offers a support system that can evaluate the emotional and psychological state of the patient. The practice of abortion counseling is generally considered helpful, enticing to seek healthcare and information on contraception and psychological support post-abortion (Beja & Leal, 2010).

Short-Term

Abortion can have significant physical side-effects on a womans body. This can include cramps, vomiting, fever, and a disrupted menstrual cycle. Although rare, abortion can result in complications and even mortality. These factors are greatly exaggerated by the cultural stigma against abortion, causing women to become concerned with physical health prior to making any decisions (Gerdts, Dobkin, Foster & Schwarz, 2016). Social situations resulting in abortion may be a deciding factor. For example, rape or an unintended teenage pregnancy often leave women without input from their partners. Meanwhile, other stable couples have the male partner having an indirect influence on the woman (Frederico, Michielsen, Arnaldo & Decat, 2018).

Long-Term

Women that are considering or have undergone abortion have increased an increased mental health risk regarding the experience. This can include anxiety, substance abuse, depression, and suicide. The stressors and pressures of the experience can lead to posttraumatic stress disorder. Inadequate pre-abortion counseling increases the chance of potential psychological trauma (Coyle, Coleman & Rue, 2010). Psychological consequences lead to poor self-esteem, excessive guilt, and nightmares. It is common for women to worry about future gynecological health, including the ability to have healthy children when they are ready (Pourreza & Batebi, 2011).

Women faced with pregnancies have to evaluate long-term factors, even as basic the desire to become a parent. If so, are there means and opportunities, especially financial to carry out, give birth, and raise the child in a safe and healthy environment. If not, what possibilities do the women have with pregnancy (termination or adoption)? The pregnancy can potentially compromise education or career choices that a woman had planned. Therefore, the process of decision-making regarding abortion is highly dependent on long-term consequences (Frederico et al., 2018).

Impacting Factors

Specific factors may have overwhelming influence over women considering abortion. These are often based on institutional or cultural norms that instill determinants of sexual behavior in women, a violation of which may result in severe social consequences. For example, some cultures view premarital sex as taboo, forcing women with unintended pregnancies into desperate situations. Religion can be a social factor which creates challenges for abortion and healthy behavior (use of contraceptives) as these are considered immoral. Furthermore, even institutional and government policy can be enacted to regulate abortion practices in a way that discourages women (Vinh & Tuan, 2015).

When considering whether to have an abortion, many women had to evaluate the reality of their current situation and prospects for the future that would ensure safe and stable conditions for raising a child. While ideological aspects play a role, practicality had a tremendous impact on the decision-making process. One recurrence is a womans lack of autonomy which can directly pressure the decision to have an abortion. Demographics such age and socio-economic status which make the woman dependent on someone else decreases the level of autonomy. Other factors recorded are lack of information and poor availability of local abortion services (Frederico et al., 2018).

Women may be driven by a number of influences and ideological factors to have a certain level of doubt about performing the abortion procedure. The first contact with a patient requires addressing subjects of choice, coercion, moral or religious principle, and psychological pressure that may require more extensive counseling. A substantial commitment to abortion counseling is to ensure a womans comfort with the decision and emotional well-being in an unobtrusive way (Joffe, 2013).

References

Beja, V., & Leal, I. (2010). Abortion counselling according to healthcare providers: A qualitative study in the Lisbon metropolitan area, Portugal. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care: The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception, 15(5), 326335. Web.

Coyle, C. T., Coleman, P. K., & Rue, V. M. (2010). Inadequate preabortion counseling and decision conflict as predictors of subsequent relationship difficulties and psychological stress in men and women. Traumatology, 16(1), 1630. Web.

Frederico, M., Michielsen, K., Arnaldo, C., & Decat, P. (2018). Factors influencing abortion decision-making processes among young women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(329), 1-13. Web.

Gerdts, C., Dobkin, L., Foster, D. G., & Schwarz, E. B. (2016). Side effects, physical health consequences, and mortality associated with abortion and birth after an unwanted pregnancy. Womens Health Issues, 26(1), 55-59. Web.

Joffe, C. (2013). The politicization of abortion and the evolution of abortion counselling. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), 5765. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Pourreza, A., & Batebi, A. (2011). Psychological consequences of abortion among the post abortion care seeking women in Tehran. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 6(1), 31-36. Web.

Vinh, N. T., & Tuan, P. C. (2015). Factors influencing unintended pregnancy and abortion among unmarried youth in Vietnam: A literature review. Tap Chi Y Te Cong Cong, 3(2), 316. Web.