Category: Pro Choice (Abortion)

When the topic of abortion is mentioned in a conversation people often that something absurd is about to be said. Either an experience someone has had, a story to share about a friend of a friend or an unfortunate tragedy. For many abortions is a very controversial topic. This conversation can be dated back to the famously known landmark decision by the US supreme court called the Roe v. Wade case. The court ruled that abortions were banned unless the procedure was needed to save the mother’s life. This in turn legalized abortions for specific circumstances to come. From a liberal perspective, one can believe that a woman should always be allowed to choose what she does with her body. Others, more on the conservative spectrum chose to believe that all humans, including the unborn, have a right to life. These two different perspectives tend to make politics circling this topic a very polarized conversation surrounding women’s bodies. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine On one hand someone could consider a woman’s decision to get an abortion to be wrong. But they also forget that preventing safe and effective abortions can lead to even bigger problems such as illegal abortions, deaths from both women and children due to a lack of resources once the child is born, and lack of education and quality of life. I will be discussing the ethics, and opinions of both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice parties and a possible middle ground in which they could come to an understanding.

First, we will begin by discussing the pro-life perspective and the men and women fighting to protect women’s welfare, and the little lives forming inside of them. It is apparent that not everyone that supports women’s rights also supports a woman’s right to abortion. Many pro-lifers actually believe that there are many other options before deciding on the termination of early pregnancy. They often promote that rather than looking to “getting rid of the problem” what women need are better options socially and economically. For example, access to inexpensive child care, a job or place of work that understands the needs of the mother (maternity leave), governmental support for babysitters, and someone who can help watch their baby after daycare, and after school. It also comes to my attention that they strongly believe that if governments on a national scale reduced the accessibility to abortion clinics the expecting mothers would be more interested in turning to gain support from communities and interested in carrying the fetus to term to then later put the child up for adoption. Deciding to have a child one has carried all nine months is never an easy decision but not only would it save the fetus’s life but it would give another couple who cannot conceive an opportunity to become parents to a child in need and provide the child with everything their biological parents couldn’t at the time of conception.

Others also argue that abortion does not liberate a woman but rather keeps women inferior to men. In a patriarchal world, a man will always get “his way” because if a man suggests his partner get an abortion after deciding he is not interested in being a father the woman would have three limiting options: to face the pregnancy on her own being the sole provider, carrying the child until birth to be put into foster care or to abort the fetus when it is not fully developed. In this scenario, a man advocating for abortion is “anti-women” since having access to abortion clinics would allow people to not take responsibility for their choices and reproductive health. Many women advocating for pro-choice might not realize that sometimes having access to safe clinics leads to another form of violence, violence towards an unborn life. this way men would have contact with women on demand and therefore the need for an abortion would be more common (in theory) ultimately encouraging the exploitation of women more.

Moreover, let’s begin to look into pro-choice values and the people advocating for what some experts call “pro-reproductive rights”. In general, those who identify as pro-choice believe that every man, woman, a person has a basic human right to decide when they get to choose when they want to bring a child into this world. The reason pro-life advocates are in contention with pro-choice is that when someone expresses they are pro-choice they are acknowledging the fact that they are okay with people having the ability to opt for abortion as an alternative for an unplanned pregnancy. This means a woman could go out the next day and find a clinic that offers the service and get the procedure done discreetly even if their significant other does not fully agree with what’s happening either morally or because they are interested in raising the child with or without them. Pro-choice doesn’t specifically mean that someone is only supporting abortion but various other resources along with abortion. Such as sexual education to children as early as the age of nine years old, access to birth control contraceptives, and family health clinics such as Planned Parenthood.

The biggest contrasting argument pro-choice people have is that they think that a fetus is not a person from the moment the egg is inseminated by the sperm which is what makes it okay to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester, normally when the abortion would take place. Some other significant arguments for pro-choice are in cases of rape and incest and pregnancy is a result. Supporters feel that women who have been abused and put in a position where they are bearing the child of a traumatic experience should have the right to abort a child that was not conceived consensually. Also, other individuals support terminating a fetus when there are signs of the down syndrome within the fetal chromosomes. A test called Chronic Villus Sampling (CVS) can identify this disorder in the first ten to thirteen weeks of pregnancy. Some couples trying for children lean toward this option since they assume to think that this condition can significantly limit the quality of life for children once they are born. Furthermore, the supporters of pro-reproductive rights would argue that women still tend to be at the center of this complex discussion apart from men. Leaving them to be the most vulnerable and oppressed individuals. Plus the possibility of a woman being a minority or a part of the lower class economy magnifies their oppression in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. Having a child is a condition in which a woman is unable to provide or properly care for herself and the fetus sets them up for a prolonged oppression cycle. Pro-life advocates assume that there are better resources for all women out there that could help navigate these women towards choosing life. But like many women, some don’t have the luxury of planning for the future or had planned their pregnancies the way they happened.

The possibility of a middle ground for both the pro-life and pro-choice parties would be one where people accept that abortions at times are frankly necessary in unique cases. Abortions that are done out for health reasons, because a mother understands the fetus’s health is in critical condition, the mother is in an abusive relationship and is fearing for her life for the sake of her child, and in the case of incest and rape. Even some pro-life opposers who find themselves conflicted because of religious standpoints attempt to turn an eye to these scenarios because they understand they couldn’t possibly bear the pain of enduring that kind of trauma. Statistically speaking pro-life advocates often support capital punishment which can be quite confusing considering they are not okay with cutting a zygote journey short but are “okay” with someone being executed for a crime. From a short religious perspective, the difference is the fetus is a new life that is “pure” and the person facing capital punishment is someone who has lived experiences and has chosen to have done wrong. The issue with this conversation is that there isn’t quite a compromise in values. Both sides want to ultimately do what’s best for either party, but what is the “best option” in the event of taking someone’s life?

In conclusion, the term “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels cannot fully examine the complexity of this controversial argument regarding how men and women feel about abortion. Rather than putting people into two categories based on their religious, ethical, or economic stances, people should learn to be more respectful of their personal decision on how they choose to plan for their families. In my opinion, I think women should have the right to choose what they will do with their own bodies. There have been times when I too have questioned my stance on religion because no one should have the right to put an end to someone’s life but a part of me also feels that for specific circumstances, I believe that it is necessary. The Roe v. Wade landmark decision is a great example of this since the court ruled the outlaw abortions unless necessary; necessary for scenarios where women are subjected to harm and probable death. But I guess you can say I’m on the liberal spectrum, I believe women should have access to safe medical procedures that can induce pregnancies, exposure to sexual education early on in life, and information on contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion is a medical or surgical procedure that deliberately ends a pregnancy before an embryo or fetus is born. Opponents of abortion typically object to the practice for religious or ethical reasons, contending that the procedure constitutes the cruel termination of what they consider to be a viable human life. Those who support a woman’s right to choose an abortion argue that access to safe, legal abortions is a human right. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion through the end of the first trimester or the twelfth week of pregnancy. After twelve weeks, a woman’s access to abortion may be restricted based on the discretion of the states, as well as the level of risk that the pregnancy poses to the woman’s health.

The issue of abortion remains highly controversial, and state legislatures have enacted laws to restrict and regulate access to the procedure. Several of these laws have been challenged in federal courts, with some laws, such as the denial of state funds for the procedure, being upheld. Iowa adopted one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws in May 2018 when Governor Kim Reynolds approved a bill prohibiting doctors from performing an abortion if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks. Other laws, such as those requiring spousal consent for an abortion, have been struck down. Politicians, religious leaders, health care providers, and activists each contribute their own perspectives to the ongoing debate.

Opponents of abortion generally refer to themselves as pro-life, while advocates for reproductive rights typically identify as pro-choice. Differences of opinion persist within both movements. Some pro-life activists may condone abortions in cases of rape or incest, while others take an uncompromising stance, believing that all abortion is murder. Within the pro-choice movement, some activists contend that no restrictions should be placed on abortions, while many who identify as pro-choice support laws that require a waiting period before the procedure can be performed or laws requiring minors to obtain permission from their parents.

Surgical and Medical Abortions

The most common types of abortion performed are surgical and take place within the first trimester of pregnancy. The most common procedure performed is suction abortion, also referred to as vacuum aspiration, which involves removing tissue from the uterus through a thin tube. The procedure is less invasive than later surgeries that require labor to be induced. Health care providers generally consider first-trimester surgical abortions performed by trained medical professionals to be among the safest and simplest forms of surgery. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute of Medicine, and reproductive health care provider Planned Parenthood have established that abortions performed during the first trimester carry significantly fewer risks to the mother’s health than giving birth at the end of a typical pregnancy.

Medical abortions do not require surgery and are considered safe and effective until the ninth week of pregnancy. The most commonly used drugs for medical abortions in the United States are mifepristone and misoprostol taken together. In such a case, a patient is first directed to take mifepristone, also referred to as RU-486 or the “abortion pill,” which is prescribed by a health care provider. This drug blocks the body’s natural production of progesterone, an essential pregnancy hormone. The patient then takes the second pill, misoprostol, two days later. This drug causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo. Medical abortions are slightly less effective than surgical abortions but carry a smaller risk of infection. Health care professionals caution that medical abortions should not be confused with emergency contraception, a type of birth control pill used after unprotected sexual intercourse that serves to prevent, not terminate, pregnancy.

In 2015 Arkansas and Arizona passed legislation requiring doctors to inform patients that medical abortions could be interrupted or “reversed” after taking the mifepristone pill by taking a dose of progesterone, the chemical that mifepristone stops the body from naturally producing. In 2016 Arizona governor Doug Ducey repealed his state’s law, which had never gone into effect due to a lawsuit filed jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union, Desert Star Family Planning, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood. The courts dismissed the case within months of Ducey’s repeal measure because the state was unable to produce scientific evidence supporting the claim that medical abortions are reversible. Similar legislation has been passed in Idaho, South Dakota, and Utah, despite many health care professionals calling such claims irresponsible and insisting that no medical evidence suggests the process can be reversed. However, Dr. George Delgado, a family physician who had promoted the idea in 2012 with a case series of seven patients, published a paper with a larger case series in April 2018 with six co-authors that suggested the method could successfully suspend the effects of mifepristone in approximately 48 percent of medical abortions. Delgado’s paper was met with skepticism by health care professionals and reproductive rights activists.

US Legislative History

Abortions were commonly performed in the United States at the time of its founding and were not restricted by law until Connecticut passed the first anti-abortion law in 1821. Abortion law was left to the discretion of state legislatures until the Roe v. Wade ruling. By 1967, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia had classified abortion as a felony crime in most cases. That same year, however, Colorado passed a law that allowed women to seek voluntary abortions. Several states followed Colorado in liberalizing their abortion laws. By 1973, abortion laws had been repealed in four states and loosened in fourteen. In states where abortions were prohibited by law, women who wished to terminate their pregnancies sought out illegal abortions that were provided by health care workers who risked jeopardizing their careers or were performed by individuals without the proper skills or tools to perform the procedure safely.

In 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that restrictive abortion laws were unconstitutional and violated a woman’s right to privacy. The justices who supported the decision argued that while the Constitution made no specific reference to a right to privacy, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed such a right. The Court’s decision determined that an unborn fetus is not a person in the legal sense. However, the Court asserted in its decision that the government “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.” The ruling established that the decision to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester was the sole decision of the woman and her physician. The decision also permitted state governments to introduce regulations for the second trimester and to ban abortion after the fetus has reached viability except in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. Viability refers to a fetus’s ability to survive outside of the womb. The point at which viability is achieved during pregnancy remains a topic of debate. The ambiguity of the term contributes to confusion over the constitutionality of state abortion restrictions. Similarly, all state legislatures do not share the same definitions for conditions that qualify a pregnancy as endangering the health of the mother.

In Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe v. Wade decided on the same day, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Roe v. Wade by prohibiting laws that require admission to a hospital, approval by a hospital abortion committee, a second and third medical opinion, or legal residence in a state before an abortion can be performed. The decision also extended the definition of what posed a health threat to the mother when performing a post-viability abortion by allowing a health care provider to consider such factors as the woman’s age and emotional and psychological health. The decisions in these two cases contributed to a notable decrease in mortality rates among women who were pregnant.

The Roe v. Wade decision provided pro-life activists with a clear objective for building a political movement. Activists founded the National Right to Life Committee, the country’s oldest pro-life organization, in 1968 in response to states liberalizing their abortion laws. Americans United for Life, founded in 1971, created a legal defense in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Approximately twenty thousand activists marched together in Washington, DC, to protest the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in March for Life, the first in what has become an annual tradition for pro-life activists. Critics of the court’s decision assert that unborn children are legally considered persons in other situations. Unborn children have the right to inherit property, for instance. Likewise, if an unborn child is wrongfully killed, the person at fault can be charged with manslaughter in some states. Critics argue that these inconsistencies reveal the decision’s lack of legal foundation.

While Roe v. Wade acts as a national standard for abortion law in the United States, the Supreme Court has heard several cases that challenge its ruling. The outcomes of some cases have brought into question the original ruling while further expanding abortion rights in others. In the 1976 case Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, the Supreme Court ruled against several restrictions imposed by Missouri’s abortion laws, thus expanding access to abortion. One year later, however, the court ruled in Maher v. Roe that state governments could choose to deny public funds for an abortion, granting the government additional control over reproductive health care. The Maher v. Roe decision took advantage of the Hyde Amendment, a piece of legislation passed by Congress in 1976 that excluded abortion from the list of medical services provided and covered through Medicaid, the federal and state government program that subsidizes medical costs for patients with limited means.

In the 1990s, many state legislatures introduced laws that placed additional regulations on abortion providers that pro-choice activists argued would result in restricted access to abortions. Some of these laws included provisions that required the examination rooms in which the procedure would be performed to be a certain size and width. Other laws insisted abortion providers and facilities be affiliated with a hospital or that abortions be performed within a certain distance from a hospital. Pro-choice groups refer to these laws as Targeted Regulation for Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. Opponents of TRAP laws argue that they place undue burdens on patients and health care providers in violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings. In 2016, the Supreme Court reviewed a bill from Texas that imposed regulations on abortion providers in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The court ruled that the provisions required by the Texas bill did not produce enough medical benefits to justify the imposition placed on women seeking abortions.

The allocation of government funds continues to be a focus of the abortion debate. Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970 provides grants for family planning programs. In March 2017, the Senate narrowly voted to repeal a restriction that prevented states from denying Title X funds to organizations that perform abortions. The regulation had been issued by the Obama administration shortly before the president left office. The Senate’s decision blocks over $200 million from going to Planned Parenthood and other health care providers that offer abortions. Critics noted that such organizations use this money to provide health care services other than abortions, as the Hyde Amendment already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except under special circumstances. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on April 13, 2017.

In March 2018 the Supreme Court heard a case regarding crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which are nonprofit organizations that seek to deter women from terminating unwanted pregnancies. Reproductive rights advocates contend that CPCs often mislead women seeking abortions by engaging in deceitful advertising practices, purposefully providing inaccurate information to visitors, treating women seeking abortions with hostility, and lying to visitors to keep them from leaving the facility. In 2015 California passed the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (Reproductive FACT) Act, which requires CPCs to inform their clients that California offers public programs that provide qualifying women with free or subsidized reproductive health care services, including family planning, prenatal care, and abortions. Facilities must also list a telephone number that women can call to determine their eligibility. Additionally, the law requires facilities to provide evidence of their medical license or state clearly that the facility and its staff are unlicensed. The law stipulates that this information needs to be clearly displayed on location and in all print and digital advertising.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a pro-life law firm that represents over 1,400 licensed and unlicensed CPCs, filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Justice, contending that the new law restricted free speech. Religious organizations, health care providers, public policy research institutes, lawmakers, and government organizations submitted amicus briefs to the court, including briefs submitted by coalitions of state government, one in support of the petitioners and one in support of the respondents. The outcome of the case is expected to affect previous Supreme Court rulings regarding free speech and states’ rights.

Pro-life and pro-choice groups have each experienced small victories in the legal battles to determine reproductive rights since 1973, but research indicates that public opinion has come to increasingly accept the Roe v. Wade decision. A 2017 survey conducted by Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Even so, pro-life groups have been vocal and at times aggressive in their opposition to abortion.

Social Concerns

Many supporters of abortion rights claim that restrictions on abortions have a negative impact on the poor, especially in less developed nations. Though estimates vary widely, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that complications from unsafe abortions result in the deaths of tens of thousands of women every year. Despite lacking exact figures, WHO and other researchers have determined that the annual number of women dying from these complications has steadily declined since the 1990s. The international reproductive rights nonprofit organization Ipas attributes the decline to the liberalization of abortion laws as well as expanded access to safe abortions and effective contraception. However, Ipas warns that restrictive abortion policies in South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa continue to contribute significantly to the number of global deaths from unsafe abortions.

Advocates for reproductive rights contend that restrictions on abortion can make them cost-prohibitive for women with limited resources. For example, restrictions on the use of government funds to cover the cost of abortion deny women equal access to the procedure. Additionally, state laws that impose certain restrictions may compel a woman to seek an abortion in another state. Traveling to another state places a financial burden on the woman that may be beyond her resources.

Most governments around the world regulate the practice of abortion through laws that say whether, when, why, and how abortions can occur. Abortion is banned under all circumstances in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Vatican City, and Malta. Other countries, such as developing nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, have restrictive abortion laws that only allow abortions when the mother’s life is in danger. In contrast, several industrialized nations, such as Australia, Japan, and Sweden, permit voluntary abortions until the end of the first trimester while imposing certain restrictions during the second and third trimesters.

Responses and Activism

The pro-life movement has given rise to a network of fervent activists, including those who hold public demonstrations outside of health care facilities that provide abortions. Protesters at abortion clinics often brandish signs with images of fetuses intended to disturb witnesses and shout condemnations and threats of violence toward doctors and patients entering these buildings. In response to these incidents, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, which made blocking the entrances of places providing abortion counseling or services a federal offense punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Some anti-abortion activist groups adopted extremist tactics to promote their cause. Members of the militant pro-life organization Operation Rescue have been involved in incidents of domestic terrorism, including the bombing of abortion clinics and the aggressive harassment of health care workers who provide abortions. In 2009, Scott Roeder, an associate of Operation Rescue, murdered prominent abortion provider George Tiller at his church in Kansas.

In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life organization, captured national attention when the group released videos that activists had secretly recorded of Planned Parenthood employees. The videos featured employees discussing fetal tissue sales, sex-selective abortions, and abortions for underage prostitutes. The videos spurred condemnation from reproductive rights activists as being edited in a manipulative and misleading manner, while anti-abortion activists lauded the videos as citizen journalism. F However, in March 2017, the two anti-abortion activists responsible for recording the undercover videos were charged with fifteen felony counts of invasion of privacy for videos filmed in California.

Empowering Choice: Understanding Abortion Within Complex Circumstances

Abortion is a controversial topic all around, but when you think about it, is it really bad? A woman is carrying a baby; the circumstances and details are unknown, but she doesn’t want to keep it. She should be allowed to make that decision without someone shaming her or telling her it’s illegal. I also don’t believe that there should be a time limit to this action, as a woman can find out he’s pregnant too late to deal with the situation responsibly. Abortion should be left up to the woman to decide. While I don’t believe it should be used as a form of birth control, I believe under certain circumstances, it is more than acceptable.

An acorn isn’t a tree, an egg isn’t a chicken, silkworms aren’t a dress, and a zygote is not a person. There are many circumstances in which abortion is perfectly understandable. Some of the reasons include; the health of the baby and mother, whether the baby can be financially supported and have a good life if the baby is healthy enough to function outside of the womb/ if the baby has any disabilities that would render it helpless in society, and if the mother isn’t willingly carrying the baby and was raped. All of these reasons listed above are perfectly understandable for someone to get an abortion.

Navigating Abortion: Personal Choice Amidst Ethical Debates

There are two ways of having an abortion: an in-clinic procedure or an abortion pill. The abortion pill only works up to 10 weeks into the pregnancy. Terminating pregnancies is a big deal and takes a lot of time and consideration. While it is a big decision to make, it shouldn’t be left up to the government to decide whether or not the woman can terminate her pregnancy. While there are many people who are pro-choice, many people are pro-life and feel that abortion is wrong and a sin. The reason they think this is because you’re destroying a life (whether fully developed or not) instead of giving it life.

Until someone is put into that situation themselves, they may not know how to handle the situation. Even when put into that situation, they still may not know what the ethically right choice is, and that’s okay. It’s not right to let other people’s thoughts around you continue to hinder you from making your own choices that only really impact your life. A baby is a huge financial and constant responsibility. It is a decision that should not be handled lightly, so if you’re in a financial rut or can’t raise a baby in a stable environment, it should be left in your hands to choose whether or not you have the baby or abort it.

Responsible Choice: Navigating Abortion’s Complexity and Considerations

Although I am pro-choice personally, I do not think it should be used recklessly as a form of birth control. Women who continue to fall pregnant and have abortions are recklessly abusing the (now) privilege of being allowed to terminate a pregnancy. Abortions, as stated before, are a serious decision. Terminating a pregnancy shouldn’t be easy. It should be a well-thought-out choice that you and your partner (if one is present) think over thoroughly before proceeding. You can also damage your body if you continue to have abortions, as you’re wiping your body clean of an entire organ (placenta, zygote, etc.).

While one abortion shouldn’t cause permanent damage, repeated abusive use of the procedure can cause permanent physical damage. In conclusion, abortion is a big and very controversial decision. There are two types of abortion: the in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill. I personally feel that the choice should be left up to the woman carrying the baby and not signed away to the government to ban. It should be monitored, as it shouldn’t be used recklessly as a form of birth control. There are so many reasons an abortion may be necessary that it isn’t right for someone to take away the right to have the procedure done if needed.

References:

Abortion Procedures: Clinic-based Methods and Anesthesia

The age-old question of abortion is whether it is morally right or wrong. The definition of abortion, according to Revel, is “the premature termination of a pregnancy that is termination prior to birth” (Revel Ethics). The research led to finding how an abortion is done, what types of abortion there are, and the reasons women can have an abortion after the second trimester. An important question will be answered about the value of life. Some of the viewpoints on abortion are pro-choice and pro-life.

The different forms of abortion are in a pill form or in a clinic. In the clinic, there are multiple types of abortion. The first is Vacuum Aspiration. During this procedure, the doctor will: examine your uterus put a speculum in to see into your vagina, inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix stretch the opening of your cervix with a series of dilating rods. If you haven’t had them put in earlier, insert a thin tube through your cervix into your uterus. Use a small, hand-held suction device or suction machine to gently take the pregnancy tissue out of your uterus. (Planned Parent Hood)

The next D&E is done after 12 weeks. Give you a first dose of antibiotic to prevent infection. Position you on the exam table in the same position used for a pelvic exam, with your feet on stirrups while lying on your back. Insert a speculum into the vagina. Clean the vagina and cervix with an antiseptic solution. Give you a pain medicine injection in the cervical area (paracervical block) along with a sedative. If the procedure is done in an operating room, you could receive a spinal anesthesia injection into the fluid around the spinal cord. This numbs the area between your legs. Or your doctor may use general anesthesia, which makes you unconscious.

Surgical Techniques and Post-Procedure Care

Grasp the cervix with an instrument to hold the uterus in place. Dilate the cervical canal with probes of increasing size. An abortion in the second 12 weeks will need the cervix to be dilated more than required for a vacuum aspiration. Pass a hollow tube (cannula) into the uterus. The cannula is attached by tubing to a bottle and a pump that provides a gentle vacuum to remove tissue in the uterus. Some cramping is felt during the rest of the procedure. Pass a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue. This is more likely in pregnancies of 16 weeks or more and is done before the uterine lining is scraped with a curette.

Use a curved instrument (curette) to gently scrape the lining of the uterus and remove tissue in the uterus. Use suction. This may be done as a final step to make sure the uterine contents are completely removed. Give you a medicine to reduce the amount of bleeding from the procedure. They may also use a small surgical tool called a curette to remove any tissue that’s left in your uterus or check to make sure your uterus is totally empty. (Healthwise Staff)

The first main view of abortion is pro-choice, which means abortion. The principle of individual freedom is argued a lot with abortion. “Individual freedom means that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body” (Revel Ethics). Would you tell someone they couldn’t get their ears pierced or implants? An abortion is the choice of the family having the baby or the woman in case there is no spouse. Some of the reasons why women have abortions are because of “health conditions like heart failure, preeclampsia, and renal disease, Mental health like severe depression and suicidal tendencies” (Planned et al.).

Ethical Dilemma: Valuing Life and Individual Autonomy

The people who aren’t pro-choice are pro-life, which means they believe that all life is to be valued. The value of life principle is the principle that is associated with this. The value of life principle means that all life is to be valued. So, when a fetus is created and it has a heartbeat, it is life, and to have an abortion is terminating life. The question is, “At what point is it to be valued and protected to the same extent as the lives of human beings who already have been born” (Revel Ethics)?

This question has no correct answer, depending on the side you are looking at. “According to the strong antiabortion (pro-life) position, the conceptus has an absolute right to life from the moment of conception onward. According to the strong abortion-on-request (pro-choice) position, however, women have absolute rights over their own bodies and lives. Both of these positions and the arguments used to support them” (Revel Ethics). This is a hard issue to discuss and to determine what is right and what’s wrong, depending on the individual’s situation.

Some people might have an abortion due to health reasons, and some might have one because of rap or incest. People have their own personal reasons to have an abortion, just like people have their own personal reasons not to have an abortion. There are side effects to every decision we make. The side effect of an abortion is severe cramping and heavy bleeding, according to plannedparenthood.org. Abortion does involve the value of life.

Personal Choice and Moral Dilemmas in Abortion

Defending the value of life principle, “the conceptus is innocent and cannot defend itself from being killed” (Revel Ethics). This argues that the conceptus has a right to life and has absolute rights. Ethical egoism: You should do what’s in your best interest. So, if having an abortion is in your best interest, then it’s right.

In conclusion, abortion is a personal choice for someone. Not everyone will believe this to be the same choice, but not everyone’s circumstances are the same either. I personally don’t stand for abortion. If a person is mature enough to have sexual intercourse, then they are also mature enough to have a baby. Everyone must learn from their mistakes and by constantly having an abortion as a form of birth control. Then, no one will learn from it. They will think it is okay to constantly end a life. Yes, abortion should be used as a last resort, like if a mother’s life is at stake or if the child isn’t formed correctly.

References:

1. Healthwise Staff “Dilation and Evacuation” November 21, 2017 https://www.uwhealth.org/health/topic/surgicaldetail/abortion-dilation-and-evacuation-d&e-for/tw2462.html
2. Thiroux Jacques P. And Keith W. Krasemann “Revel Ethics and Practice 11e updated edition”.
3. What Happens During an in Clinic Abortion https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion
4. White Jack, Palm Beach Youth Leadership Council “Varied View Points on Abortion” January 27, 2017. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-south-east-north- florida/blog/the-varied-viewpoints-on-abortion

Abortion Debates: Perspectives and Controversies

Your loved one wants to get an abortion, but their state has made it difficult to access one. What would you do? Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended early. There are two types of abortion: medical and surgical abortion. (“What Is Abortion…”) Medical abortion uses an abortion pill. It’s usually for pregnancies that are from 12 to 14 weeks. If this fails, then they do surgical abortion to complete the procedure.

(“Medical Abortion…”), (“Abortion, Wikipedia…”) Surgical abortion is when they use suction-aspiration or vacuum aspiration. Vacuum aspiration removes the fetus or embryo, placenta, and membranes by using a syringe. Suction-aspiration uses an electric pump. (“Abortion, Wikipedia…”) People have different opinions on abortion; they are called pro-life or pro-choice. We should keep abortion legal and get rid of laws that all but ban it or make it difficult to access because of the common good, the dangers of making it illegal, and constitutional rights.

Pro-choice thinks abortion is right. Pro-life is against abortion. Pro-choice thinks there should be abortion because it gives women the choice to terminate their pregnancy. This choice empowers women because it gives them independence and the ability to determine their future. Pro-life thinks that there shouldn’t be abortion because they think abortion is murder. They think killing a human that’s innocent is wrong and that the person who gets an abortion should be punished.

Even though fetuses are not born yet, they should still be considered human beings. (Abortion ProCon.org…) There isn’t a society where it allows someone to intentionally harm or take one’s life without punishment. Pro-life people think that abortion isn’t any different. People who choose abortion are usually minors or young women who have insufficient life experience to fully understand what they are doing. Many of them might have lifelong regrets afterward. (Lowen, Linda…) Because of Roe V. Wade, States have passed laws that restrict abortion. “Last Five Years…”

People who are Pro-life have said that during the abortion procedure, fetuses experience pain. This isn’t true because fetuses cannot experience pain. They have not developed enough to support pain experience. The flinching and other reactions that happen are more reflexes and not indications that they are feeling. (Abortion ProCon.org…) They also have said that abortion is killing a human, which defies the word of God. Although a lot of religious groups are against abortion, many of them support women’s reproductive choices and believe that abortion should be legal.

Abortion’s Impact on Society and Women’s Well-being

In the Bible, there’s no prohibition of abortion. It doesn’t say that killing a fetus is equivalent to killing a human. (Abortion ProCon.org…) Another thing they have said is that abortion is dangerous. This isn’t true because abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine when it’s performed by a professional. (The Constitution and Personhood Jurisprudence…) They have said that fetuses are human beings. Fetuses cannot survive on their own. They are dependent on their mother’s body. (Millstein, Seth…) The fetus is a part of the woman’s body; therefore, it should be the woman’s decision to decide if her unborn child lives or dies. (“It’s My Body/ a Women’s Choice…”)

Legal abortion supports the common good by protecting women’s rights, causing unwanted children, crimes, and an increase in population. (Abortion ProCon.org…) Banning abortion violates women’s rights because it doesn’t give them the right to control their own body. (The Constitution and Personhood Jurisprudence…) Unwanted children lead to poverty and crime. If there wasn’t abortion, there would be increased poverty because of more unwanted children who are born into poor families.

(The American Journal of Public Health…) After abortion was legalized, crime rates dropped. Women who have abortions are most at risk for giving birth to children who engage in criminal activity. Women who had control over their pregnancy were most likely to raise their children in optimal environments. (Abortion ProCon.org…) There’s population control because only wanted children are born. (The American Journal of Public Health…) If there wasn’t abortion, then the population would increase. (Abortion ProCon.org…)

There are many dangers to banning abortion. If women get denied abortion, they are three times more likely to become poor and twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. Resulting additional births would increase the federal deflect by $225 million over nine years. When women have abortions, they are less likely to suffer mental health issues than women who are denied. Women who choose abortion often don’t have the financial resources to support a child. Pregnancies that are unintended will increase the number of birth defects, children with low birth weight, maternal depression, increase the risk of child abuse, and lower educational attainment.

(Abortion ProCon.org…) During a study, they interviewed people who were planning to have an abortion; 73% of respondents said they couldn’t afford a baby. 38% said that giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. (Abortion ProCon.org…) It costs a lot to have a child in the hospital. Giving birth would increase the sixth most common cause of death, giving birth. (The Constitution and Personhood Jurisprudence…) When you ban abortion, you put women at risk by making them use illegal abortionists. (Ethics – Abortion…)

Constitutional Foundations and Ethical Considerations of Abortion Rights

The Constitution supports abortion by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment says that “no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due to process of law nor shall a private property be taken for public use without compensation.” The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State should make or enforce any law that will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. Nor shall any state deprive people of life, liberty, or property without the process of law. Nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.”

(The Constitution and Personhood Jurisprudence…) In 1970, a pregnant woman in Texas brought a lawsuit against Henry Wade in a Texas federal court. She was single, and she wanted to get an abortion. She wanted it done by a doctor, but she couldn’t afford to travel outside Texas. Also, she couldn’t get a legal abortion in Texas because her life wasn’t in danger. The woman’s lawsuit claimed that the law violated her right to privacy. The case made its way to the Supreme Court. Then, in 1973, the Supreme Court decided that the state law that banned abortions was unconstitutional.

(Roe v. Wade…) Women have the right to an abortion because it’s protected by their right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Roe v. Wade…) People who are born have civil rights. If you aren’t born yet, then you don’t have civil rights. The Declaration of Independence says a woman has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (TONY KIMBERLIN…) Banning abortion would impact this because, in special cases, it doesn’t give women the right to life because they might die from giving birth. If they don’t have an abortion, they don’t have a choice; therefore, they don’t have liberty.

And forcing someone to have a kid wouldn’t give them the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone should have a standard of living, good health, and well-being for themselves and their family. Banning abortion would violate their standard of living because they need to take care of a kid and themselves. If there isn’t abortion, they might not have good health because they are likely to suffer mental health issues. Also, they don’t get a well-being because they are forced to raise kids. By getting rid of abortion, it violates women’s rights. (Worrell, Marc…)

In conclusion, we should keep abortion legal and get rid of laws that all but ban it or make it difficult to access because of the common good for less likely to violate women’s rights, fewer unwanted children, fewer crimes, and population control. The danger of making abortion illegal is women becoming more likely to be below the poverty level, likely to become victims of domestic violence, and are likely to suffer mental health issues. The constitutional rights that support abortion are the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Roe v. Wade. The Declaration of Independence and The Declaration of Human Rights also support abortion. Therefore, you should be pro-choice. Join the National Abortion Rights Action League pro-choice America.

References:

1. “What Is Abortion?” Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion.
2. “Medical Abortion: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007382.htm.
3. “Abortion.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion.
4. “Abortion ProCon.org – Fetuses Can’t Feel Pain.” ProCon.org. https://abortion.procon.org/fetuses-cant-feel-pain/.
5. Lowen, Linda. “10 Arguments for Abortion and 10 Arguments Against Abortion.” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-and-against-abortion-3534153.
6. “The Constitution and Personhood Jurisprudence.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-and-personhood-jurisprudence.
7. “Millstein, Seth.” The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, 4th ed. Ed. Russ Shafer-Landau. Oxford University Press, 2017.
8. “It’s My Body/ a Women’s Choice.” Feminist Women’s Health Center. http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/itsmybody.htm.
9. “The American Journal of Public Health.” American Public Health Association. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.75.7.761.
10. “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).” Justia US Supreme Court Center. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/.
11. TONY KIMBERLIN, CRIME REDUCTION, AND THE CRIMINAL LAW. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2011 366, 3293-3302. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0047.
12. Worrell, Marc. “Women’s Rights: Why Banning Abortion Would Violate Them.” HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/womens-rights-why-banning_b_981267.

Socioeconomic Impact of Denied Abortions

I firmly believe that abortion is eternally within the rights of women across the world. If an individual is in agreement with legal abortion, the phrase “pro-choice” is given since it is, indeed, the choice of women. No individual or legislation should have the ability or authority to demand what a woman must do with her physical being. In this argument, I will be discussing the past and present implications of the legality of abortion and why it is so vital for women to have the option to choose. I will also correlate some of the readings performed in class to this argument to support my claim.

Pro-choice supporters of abortion believe that undergoing the procedure is a woman’s right. Those favoring the option of Pro-life, which is anti-abortion, quarrel that it is murder and believe that human life starts from conception. Fetuses and embryos are not viable, independent human beings. Abortion is not murder but only the termination of a pregnancy (ProCon). The age of a person is affected by their date of birth, not their process of formation in gestation. The United States census does not factor in fetuses and does not include those not yet born (ProCon).

Daniel Mishell, the Department Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Keek School of Medicine, explains that prior to the legalization of abortion, women would attempt to induce abortions with hangers, needles, or “back-alley” abortionists (ProCon). As a result, there were an estimated 39 maternal deaths in 1972. The World Health Organization has deemed that hazardous abortions performed create 68,000 worldwide maternal deaths every year. Many of these deaths are in countries where legal and safe abortion services are not easily reachable (ProCon). This is a significant factor as to why women should have choice. Women should not die enduring a dangerous and non-sterile procedure that should be performed by a licensed professional, as it is a fundamental right.

Another particularly important factor is to consider the mental well-being of women going through pregnancies or even being forced under regulation to become mothers. A study performed by the American Psychological Association, which was peer-reviewed, compared the mental health of women who endured abortions and women who were denied abortions. This study found that the women who were denied abortions felt “more regret and anger” and less “relief and happiness” than women who received abortions (ProCon). The same study discovered that 95% of women who withstood abortions were confident in their decision a week after the process (ProCon).

Women’s ability to have an abortion can absolutely alter their financial, socioeconomic, and safety levels. A study performed at the University of California discovered that women who were denied abortion clinics were three times as likely to fall below the poverty level than women who received abortions (ProCon). 76% of the women who were denied were on unemployment benefits, in comparison to the 44% of women who had an abortion (ProCon). It was also discovered in the study that the same women who were denied abortions were more likely to remain in an abusive relationship and were twice as likely to be victims of domestic violence compared to women who were not denied abortions (ProCon).

Childbirth’s Impact on Women’s Autonomy and Equality

Another major economic factor is that women having reproductive choices protects them from financial and educational shortcomings. Surpluses of women who choose to undergo abortion don’t have the economic resources to care for a child (ProCon). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health conducted a survey that asked women their reasons for receiving abortions. They discovered that 73% explained they couldn’t afford to have the baby, and 38% said that childbirth and motherhood would restrict their careers and education (ProCon). American Sociology Review concluded that women at every income level earn significantly less when they are mothers, with low-income workers being the most influenced, with a 15% earnings consequence (ProCon). Being forced to have a child without the capability to have an abortion can harm a woman’s career and education.

If a mother is forced to experience childbirth without wanting to endure childbirth, the child is at a multitude of risk factors. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment explained that pregnancies that are not intentional are typically related to birth defects, low birth weight, post-partum depression, higher risk of child abuse, decreased education, minimal prenatal care, and an increased risk of physical violence during development (ProCon). In fact, 45% of all pregnancies are unintentional (ProCon). The safety of children is also at risk when it comes to abortion.

In 1972, in the legendary case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court came to a decision of 7-2 that abortion is an essential and legal right of women. From the time this monumental case occurred, the Supreme Court of the United States realized that the right to abortion is not only just equality but also a right to independence (Siegel). Arguments regarding equality in sex have noticed that the restriction on abortion denies women autonomy and their choice about motherhood; furthermore, it can degrade any dissimilarities in education, economic status, and politics that would be influenced by childbearing (Siegel).

The country’s dedication to “protect the lives of unborn babies” doesn’t correlate with the agenda of the United States government. The laws enforce the burden of forcing childbirth onto women who are pregnant and then giving minimal or no support when the babies are born (Siegel). If legislatures truly wanted to protect lives and provide care, they would go the extra mile to offer nourishment to women who had no choice in childbearing (Siegel). Most of the time, these women are forced to give birth with little emotional support and have to endure the emotional, physical, mental, and financial costs of the entire duration of motherhood (Siegel). Restriction upon abortion authenticates normative stereotypes of sex roles and could breach the United States Constitution (Siegel).

In another famous court case that occurred in 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the topic of abortion was once again highly prevalent. The case involved an argument that if a married woman opted for an abortion, she must provide a mandatory notification to the husband about the matter (Oyez). The court explained that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Siegel). This suggests the government cannot impose gender stereotypes upon women (Siegel). The court decided that abortion limitations reject women’s equality and enforce infirmity on the basic rights of women to make their own choice to become a mother (Siegel).

Reproductive Control, Autonomy, and Objectification

One of the many readings we performed in class, Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin, I felt was applicable to the topic of freedom of choice for abortion. “Reproductive strategies are strengthening male dominance, invigorating it by providing new ways of policing women’s reproductive capacities, bringing them under male scrutiny and control; and the experimental development of these technologies has been sadistic, using human women as if they were sexual laboratory animals- rats, mice, rabbits, cats, with kinky uteri” (Dworkin, 176).

The passage displays how men and other secondary powers have been policing and controlling the reproductive rights of women for quite some time now. If it is not controlled through intercourse, it is controlled through the law. Are women really supposed to be treated as reproductive lab rats? Are women really not supposed to have autonomy when it comes to their own biological comfort and decision to reproduce?

Dworkin speaks about freedom and to “end women’s inferior status because we need not to be forced to reproduce, but this is an unlikely social development because there is a hatred of women, unexplained, undiagnosed, mostly unacknowledged” (Dworkin, 175). By limiting the choice of abortion, this is exactly what the option is for women. It is limiting autonomy and truly forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant with the perpetrator’s child, is that woman supposed to give birth to that baby? She should not be forced to.

“Being female in this world is having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide-ranging capacity for choice” (Dworkin, 177). Denying the freedom to choose to have an abortion or not robs every woman of their free will and ability to make decisions.

By denying women their reproductive rights and right to abortion, it is absolutely a recipe for objectification. “Being an object-living in the realm of male objectification-is abject submission, an abdication of the freedom and integrity of the body, its privacy, its uniqueness, its worth in and of itself because it is the human body of a human being” (Dworkin, 177).

Reproductive Autonomy, Objectification, and Women’s Fundamental Rights

In Objectification by Martha Nussbaum, she describes what exactly entails objectification. One of the factors of objectification is a denial of autonomy. This means that those objectified are treated as if they lack autonomy and self-determination (Nussbaum, 257). This is what occurs for women who are unable to make their own decisions regarding abortion. The restriction of abortion also correlates with another factor of objectification, which is the denial of subjectivity. This means that the objectifier treats them as something whose “experience and feelings need not be taken into account” (Nussbaum, 257).

Not allowing women to choose for themselves to have an abortion denies their subjectivity tremendously. By restricting abortion, women’s feelings and any emotional disparity are silenced. Nussbaum’s analysis of MacKinnon and Dworkin about sexuality can absolutely pertain to the idea that women are profoundly within their fundamental rights to have access to legal and safe abortions. “It shows us how a certain sort of instrumental use of persons, negating the autonomy that is proper to them as persons, for the refusal of imagination in the denial of subjectivity, for the denial of individuality in fungibility, and even for bodily and spiritual violation” (Nussbaum, 265). It is, indeed, a bodily violation for legislatures and any outside influence to deny women their right to pregnancy termination.

Dworkin explains, “The brilliance of objectification as a strategy of dominance is that it gets the woman to take the initiative in her own degradation (having less freedom is degrading). The woman herself takes one kind of responsibility absolutely and thus commits herself to her own continuing inferiority: she polices her own body, and she internalizes the demands of the dominant class” (Dworkin, 180).

In conclusion, abortion should forever be within the rights of women across the globe. Having easily accessible, secure, and sterile abortion procedures should be available for every woman. Denying women this option, which is within their basic rights, does nothing but further oppress women. Denying abortion objectifies women without saying, telling women their emotional, financial, socioeconomic, physical, mental, and educational levels do not matter. It denies women their subjectivity. Legislatures who take part in the abortion restraints are only enabling normative sexual stereotypes. Women have come quite far politically and socially in the past few decades; however, we still have much more to work on.

Women having the freedom to do what they please with their bodies is one of the few parts of our freedom that make the oppression of women feel less alienated. Whether it is sex work, pornography, or any other physical freedom we have, abortion is always a woman’s choice and should never be policed by anyone but the woman’s choice. With all the information provided, it is clear that when women do not have these restraints of abortion placed upon them, it is multi-dimensionally empowering and necessary. The term pro-choice is named that because it is eternally a woman’s choice and no one else. Abortion is a fundamental right of women.

References:

1. ProCon.org. “Abortion ProCon.org.” ProCon.org. https://abortion.procon.org/.
2. Siegel, Reva B. “The Right’s Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Woman-Protective Antiabortion Argument.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 106, no. 7, 1997, pp. 2523-2614.
3. Oyez. “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744.
4. Dworkin, Andrea. “Intercourse.” New York: The Free Press, 1987.
5. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Objectification.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 24, no. 4, 1995, pp. 249-291.

Defining Life: Characteristics and Conception

“There are 40-50 million abortions worldwide every year. Which means there are about 125 thousand each day” (“Abortions Worldwide”). Abortions have been around for decades. It is the way to terminate a pregnancy. To this day, people have argued whether abortion should be legal or not. There have been endless debates on whether life is created at conception or birth. Abortion has been around for a long time. “On January 22nd, 1973, abortion was made legal” (Payment 7). Since then, there has been a large number of abortions. American Adoptions stated, “Out of every 150 women who choose abortion, 1 chooses adoption” (“Five Alternatives To Abortion When Faced With An Unplanned Pregnancy”). Adding to the fact, “1 of 4 women in the U.S. will abort by age 45” (Vanderpool). Although many people believe it is okay to have an abortion, there are many reasons why pro-life supporters think the way they do.

Starting in the early 1800s, it was not a crime to abort. “But in 1821, states began to pass laws about abortion” (Payment 8). Doctors were concerned for the women who did the procedure on themselves. Years later, 40 states banned abortions. However, it never stopped women from doing it (Payment 8). “Doctors would illegally provide the service because they knew it was dangerous otherwise” (Payment 9). In 1973, a trial started to make abortion legal (Payment 1). Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the main people behind the case.

Their mission was to find someone to represent a very common situation–a woman named Norma McCorvey, who wanted an abortion but couldn’t get one (Payment 13-15). Later the same year, “the U.S. Supreme Court made abortion on demand legal in all 50 states” (Fisher). Recently, the state of Alabama banned abortion in 2019, while other states have limited access (Burgess). Many of these situations have started Pro-choice activists. People believe they have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. A large number of pro-choice believers don’t mind getting an abortion because they don’t think the baby is alive.

Freedom is a strong topic, debated heavily across the globe. According to the Collins Dictionary, “Freedom is the state of being allowed to do what you want” (Collins). Most people can agree with this statement, But what draws the line at personal freedom? The potential danger of others?

When thinking about human life, what is considered to be alive? The Seven Characteristics of Life has been taught in many schools. Brian Fisher states, “Preborn babies have the seven characteristics of life” (Fisher), just like everyone else you see walking around. According to Waihi Science, a living thing has movement, can respirate, is sensitive to outside interactions, can grow, can reproduce, can excrete, and can take in nutrients. Many doctors educate about life being made in the womb. In the first two months after conception, the baby’s heart begins to form with a heartbeat (“Life In The Womb”). Surprising some people, Brian Fisher also explains, “At the moment of conception, the zygote retains full personhood information.” This means all of the DNA a person acquires now is the same they had inside their mother’s womb.

Abortion Choices and Procedures: Considerations and Challenges

“Statistics show women who receive an ultrasound are more likely to choose to have the baby” (Fisher). There’s always a deep, personal connection when seeing and connecting with something that was created from conception.

Data reveals most women have abortions because taking care of a child would interfere with their future and education (Finer). Other reasons include not being able to afford it, relationship problems with a partner, or not being prepared. Only 1% claimed their parents wanted them to have one (Finer). After following through with an abortion, many women go through a series of guilt, regret, and depression. The reasoning for these feelings is due to not having confidence heading into the procedure room (“Five Alternatives With An Unplanned Pregnancy”).

Younger women don’t always know what to expect when going into the clinic. Most often, they can pick whether they want to take the abortion pill or have the doctor operate on them (“Abortion”). When taking the abortion pill, also known as a medical abortion, it will require the woman to take two pills in the span of 48 hours. It will exterminate the fetus, and it will pass through the body (Burgess). Clinicians say it is like a heavy menstrual cycle, while people who have taken the pill claim it brings very excruciating cramping pain.

Another way doctors perform the procedure is with a Vacuum Aspiration. They insert a speculum into the woman and then a tube that is connected to a suction device. Next, it starts sucking the fetus out of the uterus (Burgess). The last abortion method is Dilation and Evacuation. It is a surgical operation that removes the fetus (Burgess). This method isn’t the most common because it’s not fast and accessible. But, it can remove the fetus in the second trimester, which is what the pill cannot do.

When a young lady discovers she is pregnant, in her eyes, it might not seem like there are many choices. Becoming a parent is always an option. However, it could be a struggle because it’s crucial for the mother to have a strong support system (“Five Alternatives With An Unplanned Pregnancy”). Some say being alone is always scary, especially when being responsible for another person. Co-parenting has not been very common due to the complications of personal life and relationships (“Five Alternatives With An Unplanned Pregnancy”).

From Pro-Choice Advocate to Pro-Life Activist

But, it benefits the child by having two parents. Lastly, mothers can decide if they want to put their child in a healthier environment temporarily or permanently (“Five Alternatives With An Unplanned Pregnancy”), whether it’s with a family member for a couple of months or with another family for a lifetime. Adoption is free cost, and most likely, the adoptive family will help with medical expenses (“Five Alternatives With An Unplanned Pregnancy”).

A Woman named Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years. She believed in the right to choose and even became a spokesperson for the company. She and her husband attended the (pr-choice) Episcopal Church, and she decided she liked it better because it was easier than trying to hide her occupation from the Baptist church they attended earlier (Johnson 99). Johnson was always told the fetus felt no pain during the abortion procedure. Believing that she counseled women through their tough situations. Until one day when she was asked to help out in one of the rooms (Holz).

“I could see the profile of the head, arms, legs, fingers, and toes,” she thought (Johnson 4). Abby tried to reassure herself it was not in pain. However, when she saw the jerking of the fetus trying to move away from the machine tube, she knew things weren’t right (Johnson 5). As the tube sucked the fetus outside of the uterus, Abby explained it as it being “wrung like a washcloth” (Johnson 6). The experience even made her flash black when she had her abortion (Johnson 6). It was fighting to survive.

Abby Johnson decided she was on the wrong side of the fence. The peaceful people trying to get the attention of the scared patients walking into the clinic were beginning to not sound so terrible. Abby believed all she was told about abortions were twisted around and fantasized, so they didn’t seem so bad. The words always stayed in her mind, “We are here to help” (Johnson 145).

Afterward, Johnson decided it was time for her to stand up for her beliefs and prevent other women from making the same choice she had made. She quit her job at the clinic and stood in confidence. Abby Johnson was a role model to uneducated women and ended up writing a book on her experience and various situations (Johnson 257). Abby Johnson stands out to most because of how her views changed rapidly, going from a pro-choice abortion clinic director to a pro-life activist.

Navigating Abortion Decisions: Perspectives, Consequences, and Beliefs

At the end of the day, people will do as they choose. Abortion is not 100% accessible to the whole world, but it is for most. From aborting using pills to in-clinic procedures, they are effective for the choice you make.

If a young woman is surprised with a pregnancy, many recommend looking into every single option available. The choices people make every day affect everything that happens up to the present, whether it’s good or bad. Women who have gone through similar situations can relate and empathize while explaining the regretful consequences they had to endure. Everyone has their own morals that base their beliefs.

Pro-life believers support the right to life; pro-choice believers support the right to choose. Neither one is right or wrong; it solely depends on the perspective of witnessing different scenarios.

References:

1. Payment, Simone. “Abortion.” Rosen Publishing, 2010.
2. “Five Alternatives To Abortion When Faced With An Unplanned Pregnancy.” American Adoptions, www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/five_alternatives_to_abortion.
3. Vanderpool, Nancy S. “Statistics on Women Who Choose Abortion.” Verywell Health, www.verywellhealth.com/why-do-women-have-abortions-906782.
4. Fisher, Brian. “Abortion and Personhood: Historical, Legal, and Medical Considerations.” National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, 2003.
5. Burgess, Laura. “Here’s where US states stand on abortion in 2019.” CNN, www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/health/abortion-laws-us-states/index.html.
6. Collins Dictionary. “Freedom.” www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/freedom.
7. “Life In The Womb.” The Endowment for Human Development, www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit8.php.
8. Finer, Lawrence B. et al. “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 37, no. 3, 2005, pp. 110-118.
9. “Abortion.” Planned Parenthood, www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion.
10. Johnson, Abby. “Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line.” Ignatius Press, 2010.
11. Holz, Adam. “Interview: Abby Johnson on Her Journey from Planned Parenthood Worker to Pro-Life Activist.” The Federalist, 4 Oct. 2019, thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/interview-abby-johnson-on-her-journey-from-planned-parenthood-worker-to-pro-life-activist/.
12. Payment, Simone. “Abortion.” Rosen Publishing, 2010.

A woman’s choice for control over her own body is a subject widely campaigned for. The denial of women’s reproductive rights is claimed to have devastating implications for women and their families (ActionAid UK, 2019). Examples of the effects these restrictions can have on society are evident in the Republic of Ireland, where the Eighth Amendment has been in place for many years. The laws imposed by the amendment and the stronghold that the Catholic Church has over the Irish population make abortion and other reproductive rights almost impossible to obtain and are the core reason for many campaigns that have taken place all around the country. These campaigns are not only to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which the Pro-choice movements strive for but also to keep it in place, which is the aim of the Pro-life supporters.

The country has witnessed many court cases and read about countless women and girls who had suffered under this law, such as people having to travel to other countries to end their pregnancies and even the loss of life of women whose health had been overlooked for the sake of the fetus. The mental and physical health of women in Ireland was becoming an issue that could no longer be brushed aside. The result of this saw the demands of the Irish people to acquire their basic human rights concerning this amendment, and it was now a matter the Government could no longer ignore, leaving them with no alternative but to give the people the chance to express their own opinions on this matter.

Article 40.3.3, also known as the Eighth Amendment, was introduced into the Irish constitution after a referendum vote that took place in 1983. The changes brought about by the referendum gave equal rights to the life of the fetus, referred to as the unborn, and the life of the mother. These equal rights put at risk the mother’s health, whether it be her mental health, physical health, or, on occasion, even her life.

The Eighth Amendment was introduced after several court cases challenged the country’s anti-abortion laws. In Ireland, abortion was always illegal with a possible punishment of penal servitude under The British 1861 Offences Against Persons Act. This became part of Irish legislation when Ireland gained independence from Britain, becoming the Irish Free State in 1922. The Catholic Church also has a strong influence on the abortion laws in Ireland. As the Irish people are predominantly Roman Catholic, the views of the church are very much adhered to. As far back as the nineteen hundreds, the Catholic Church has involved itself in the restrictions of women’s reproductive rights. These restrictions included the Casti Connubi, a papal encyclical introduced in 1930, which proclaimed that abortion and contraception were a threat to marriage as the main point of marriage was to procreate. The Casti Connubi backs up the legislation set out in the Eighth Amendment, as it also sees abortion as the unlawful killing of the newborn in all circumstances, including fetal abnormalities (Brind Amour, 2009). However, over time, Britain, The United States, and other European countries witnessed huge changes in attitudes towards abortion, and 1967 the British Parliament voted to introduce The Abortion Act 1967. This Act set out various circumstances under which abortion could legally be obtained and stipulated that they must be carried out by registered practitioners. As abortion was still illegal in Ireland, the change in British law saw a staggering number of Irish women traveling to England to seek out an abortion. As well as the financial, physical, and mental strain that these women had to endure to be able to acquire an abortion, they also risked the trauma of being stigmatized and treated as criminals, even though some of the pregnancies could have been the result of such things as rape and incest. These women also risked up to fourteen years in prison, which for the victims of rape could be a longer sentence than the perpetrator received.

The nonexistent rights for Irish women to choose for themselves whether they wanted to abort an unwanted pregnancy, plus the physical and mental health risks associated with abortion, have been highlighted many times.

One example of the restrictions of the Eighth Amendment is the case of Miss X. Miss X was a fourteen-year-old girl who had become pregnant after being raped by a person known to her. The family of Miss X decided the best option would be to seek an abortion for the girl, meaning they would have to travel to Britain to have the procedure carried out. Before leaving for Britain, Miss X’s family inquired via the Irish police (the Guardaí) whether it would be helpful in the prosecution of the rapist if the family could obtain fetal tissue for the submission of evidence.

However, when Attorney General Harry Whelehan heard of this inquiry, he obtained an injunction prohibiting Miss X and her parents from going through with the proposed abortion. The injunction was upheld by the High Court but was lifted on appeal by the Supreme Court, where all five court justices who overlooked the case ruled that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances and that women have a right to an abortion if it is a risk to their life. It had been disclosed to the court that Miss X had threatened suicide. Miss X was eventually allowed to travel to Britain to have the abortion but suffered a miscarriage in the hospital while waiting for her procedure.

Another occasion in which the Eighth Amendment was called into question was the case of thirty-one-year-old Savita Halappanavar. Savita was admitted to a Galway hospital in October 2012 suffering from a miscarriage. Although a fetal heartbeat was detected upon examination, doctors concluded that the death of the baby was inevitable. At this time, Savita requested that she be given an abortion but was refused due to the baby still being alive, and under Irish law, while the unborn still has a heartbeat, they would be unable to terminate the pregnancy. After several days of distress, Savita’s baby eventually died, and a termination was carried out; however, the termination came too late as Savita had already developed sepsis and other complications which led to Savita losing her life. In an interview with the Irish Times, Savita’s husband stated that he believed changes needed to be made to the Irish constitution to ensure that no woman would die in such circumstances in Ireland again (Irish Examiner, 2013).

To some, this case highlighted how the Eighth Amendment put the health of the newborn before the life of the mother.

The introduction of the Eighth Amendment has seen many campaigns to remove it from the constitution but likewise has its promoters who agree with its terms. The Eighth Amendment has been quite often an unsavory and confrontational debate that has over the years divided the Irish nation.

The Pro-Life amendment campaign was launched in 1981 when it came to light that significant numbers of Irish women were traveling to England to obtain an abortion and that the Irish Supreme Court had ruled that a couple had the right to import contraceptives for their use. This sparked fears within the Irish Government that abortion could eventually become legal and so prompted the campaign for the Eighth Amendment to be introduced. In 1992, the founding members of the Pro-life Amendment campaign formed the Pro-life campaign and are strongly backed by the Catholic Church. These campaigners describe themselves as a human rights organization whose aim is to help defend human life from as early as conception to the person’s natural death. The campaigners also claim to support women during their pregnancies and those in need of psychological support after terminating a pregnancy. The Pro-lifers have, however, been criticized as only being on the side of the unborn and not fully acknowledging women who have sought out abortions as their personal choice, whatever their circumstances may be. The Pro-life campaigners have fought hard to keep the Eighth Amendment in place and were heavily involved in the Love Both Project. Love Both is a national movement that aims to protect the unborn child’s right to life. The Pro-choice campaigners, however, do not agree with the restrictions that the Eighth Amendment puts on women who wish to have their own choice about their reproductive rights. Within the Pro-choice movement are The Abortion rights campaigners. This is a movement that is totally against the Eighth Amendment and campaigns for changes in the law. This movement promotes the right for women to make their own choices about reproductive rights which would allow women to freely obtain an abortion if they so choose and to have it in their own country therefore helping to eliminate the financial and psychological burdens that some women may endure when traveling abroad to have a termination. The abortion rights campaigners aim to eradicate the stigma that surrounds abortion and reproductive health rights and to educate policymakers on these subjects. The Abortion Rights campaign has also been criticized for being in favor of the woman’s rights and not the rights of the unborn, although their campaign has inspired many Irish women to come forward and reveal their accounts of the often traumatic and very much stigmatized abortions they had endured (AbortionRights, 2013).

In contrast to the horrific stories that have been disclosed regarding the experiences some women have gone through whilst having an abortion, some women on the Pro-life side claim that abortion is the easy way out, and without the Eighth Amendment in place, many unborn children would be aborted without justification. The pressures of the Pro-life and Pro-choice campaigns and the seeming changes in attitude concerning abortion by the Irish people in general prompted the government to agree to a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and the date announced for the repeal vote was 25/MAY/2018 giving rise to the Repeal the 8th campaign.

Two of the main political parties in Ireland involved in the Repeal vote were Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Both parties were given a vote of conscience which meant that their vote would be of their own choice and not influenced by other party members. Fianna Fail, a republican party, had a majority vote which suggested the party should adopt a Pro-life position although the leader of the party Michael Martin supported the repeal and was reported to be angry when it came to light that a small number of the party members had influenced many other members to vote against the repeal (Irishexaminer.com, 2018). However, the Centre-Right Liberal-Conservative and Christian Democratic Party, Fine Gael, all supported the repeal but had differing views on what would replace it. Leo Varadkar, the Taoiseach (president of Ireland) and leader of the Fine Gael party urged people to back the yes vote. On the launch of their yes vote campaign, several party members commented on the Eighth Amendment and criticized its restrictions but pointed out that if abortion were to become legal in Ireland women would still seek out the procedure abroad as even with the victory of the yes vote there would still be restrictions on the terms of which a termination would be carried out. There was also concern that Abortion pills would still be obtained illegally and consumed by women without enough medical supervision (Google.co.uk 2019).

Upon the agreement for a referendum to be held the Oireachtas set up The Referendum Commission. The Oireachtas is one of the three powers of state that share authority in Ireland and its foremost task is creating new laws (Oireachtas. ie 2019).

The role of The Referendum Commission was to make sure that the 3.2 million electorates had all the relevant information concerning the upcoming vote for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment and to educate them on the implications of the Yes and No vote. By voting Yes, the present laws regarding Abortion would be replaced and new provisions would be made such as the right for women to obtain an abortion on request in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and up to twenty-four weeks if there are special circumstances involved. But most importantly it would give women a freedom of choice on what they can and cannot do with their bodies. On the flip side, a majority No vote would see the Eighth Amendment remain in place and unchanged. However, laws may be passed to allow an abortion in circumstances where the mother’s life may be deemed to be in danger and may be at risk of suicide. The repeal vote was welcomed by the electorate and on the 25th May 2018 the Irish people turned out to vote in their masses. It was reported that thousands of Irish citizens who lived and worked abroad also returned to Ireland to take part in this historic referendum vote. On Saturday 26th May the results were announced, and it was revealed that over sixty percent of the voters had gone in favour of the repeal. The outcome of the vote was hailed as a triumph and a historic day for women’s reproductive rights. This result was also welcomed by the Irish Government who promised to put the new laws into place as soon as possible and were not expecting any opposition from Parliament. Despite the promise that this law would be amended quickly an article was printed in the Irish Examiner on the 2nd September 2018 revealing that in the hundred days following the repeal over one thousand women had left the country to seek an abortion abroad. Pressure was once again on the Government to put in place the new legislation that would replace the Eighth Amendment which led to the Irish Prime Minister, Michael Higgins announcing that as of 1st January 2019, Abortion would be legal in Ireland. The changes made now gave equal rights to the mother and the unborn. As stipulated in the terms of the repeal the new law would allow women to have an abortion on request in their first twelve weeks of pregnancy, but abortions carried out after that would only be performed if there were special circumstances, these include risk to the mother’s life and the life of the unborn.

The evidence supporting the repeal of the Eighth Amendment clearly shows that the legislation contained in it was a blatant breach of women’s reproductive rights and disregarded any wishes the women may have concerning their bodies. Results disclosed after the repeal vote had taken place revealed that most of the Irish people were ready for change and would welcome the new legislation that would be put in place. Although some restrictions would still be in place, the policy change could only be a way forward. Even though these amendments took time to implement, the announcement that they would be introduced into the constitution on the 1st of January 2019, was a massive achievement for the repeal voters but unfortunately, this came too late for women such as Miss X. and Savita Halapanavar whose tragic events would have most certainly been different had the amendment never been in place. However, the yes vote was not a complete loss for the pro-life movement triumph as the restriction set in place would still see some women struggle in their plight to seek out an abortion and could in some way be looked upon as a small victory in their campaign.

Although this landmark vote was won it seems that Ireland still has a long way to go before women’s reproductive rights are truly honored, this is evident in the number of women who have traveled to other countries since the Eighth Amendment was repealed. Perhaps the huge influence that the Catholic Church has on the Irish people may still be holding the country back on issues such as this but it can only be hoped, if this is the case, that somewhere in the future, the people of Ireland will become less concerned about the views of the Catholic Church and in doing so women’s reproductive rights will be fully recognized.