Category: Roe V Wade

Roe v. Wade and the Indispensable Right of Women’s Choice

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.

Roe v. Wade: Pro-choice Advocacy’s Heart

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Psychological Impact of Abortion Choices

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. The same study discovered that 95% of women who withstood abortions were confident in their decision a week after the process.

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. 76% of the women who were denied were on unemployment benefits, in comparison to the 44% of women who had an abortion. 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.

Reproductive Choices & Financial Futures

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. 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. 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. Being forced to have a child without the capability to have an abortion can harm a woman’s career and education.

The Risks of Unwanted Pregnancies

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. In fact, 45% of all pregnancies are unintentional. 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 has realized that the right of abortion is not only just inequality but also a right of independence. 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.

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. 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. 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. Restriction upon abortion authenticates normative stereotypes of sex roles and could breach the United States Constitution.

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. 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.” This suggests the government cannot impose gender stereotypes upon women. 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.

Dworkin & Nussbaum on Women’s Rights

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.”

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 be forced to reproduce, but this is an unlikely social development because there is a hatred of women, unexplained, undiagnosed, mostly unacknowledged.” 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”. 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.”

In Objectification by Martha Nussbaum, she describes what exactly entails objectification. One of the factors of objectification is the denial of autonomy. This means that those objectified are treated as if they lack autonomy and self-determination. 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.”
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.” 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.”

Roe v. Wade and the Fundamental Right to Abortion Worldwide

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. Mishell, D. Implications of Unsafe Abortion Methods Prior to Legalization. Keck School of Medicine.
2. World Health Organization. Maternal Deaths due to Hazardous Abortions: An Annual Review.
3. American Psychological Association. Comparative Study on Mental Health Outcomes of Abortion Access vs. Denial. American Psychological Association.
4. University of California. Economic and Social Outcomes of Abortion Denials. University of California Publications.
5. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Exploring Primary Reasons Women Opt for Abortions.
6. American Sociology Review. Income Disparities and Motherhood: A Comprehensive Analysis. American Sociology Review Journal.
7. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Unintended Pregnancies: Associated Health and Development Risks.

Roe v. Wade and the Moral Dimensions of Abortion: Thomson vs. Marquis

Abortion is only morally permissible when the life destined for the child will be good for them. If their life will ultimately benefit them, abortion is immoral and is the unnecessary murder of a living being. Marquis’s argument is more valid than Thomson’s because Marquis touches on the importance and dignity of this living being.

Thompson supports the idea that certain life circumstances can permit the action of abortion. Because of this, these living beings should always have a chance at life, if and only if their life will be beneficial to them. Let’s define some things to clear the air. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a pregnancy. Pro-life: Opposing abortion. Pro-choice: Advocating legalized abortion. While pro-choice is more supported in the political sense, I am more of a believer in pro-choice personally. I would never abort a baby of my own, but I respect those who choose to do so for their own reasons.

Roe v. Wade: A Closer Look at the Pro-Choice Argument

Why is pro-choice so essential? Women experience obstacles in life just like everyone else. Whether these be financial, personal, or what have you, some situations simply make raising a child difficult. For these reasons, women absolutely should have the choice to either keep or abort their babies. According to the National Abortion Federation, more Americans support pro-choice compared to pro-life. For example, they claim, “National polls have consistently shown continued support for abortion rights over the years, with more people identifying as pro-choice in comparison to “pro-life.” A strong majority (60%) of Americans have consistently and strongly voiced support of Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion legal over the past decade.

Most people support keeping abortion a choice for women because most people understand the importance of respecting and protecting the lives of women.” This is crucial to understanding why a woman’s choice to abort their baby/babies is completely rational and is OKAY. Even if we do not agree with their choice, it is still a choice that women have a right to make, no matter what. We cannot possibly know the stories behind every abortion. Because of this, it is not our place as a society to sit and deem it “wrong” for a woman to abort her child. Whether we want to believe it or not, these women in question might have health issues, financial struggles, or poor living conditions that would make them unfit to be parents. Because of this, we cannot possibly agree that bringing a child into those kinds of conditions is appropriate or just in any way.

Thomson’s Perspective: The Right to Life and Circumstances Permitting Abortion

According to Thomson, “Suppose a woman becomes pregnant and now learns that she has a cardiac condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. What may be done for her?” This really strikes me because Thomson is clearly showing how, in some circumstances, we must put ourselves above everything else and know that we have a right to life as well. In addition to this, women legally have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. The Constitution gives ’ a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,’’ and that ‘‘This right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’’

This certainly shows that by law, women have the choice to either raise a child or not. Thomson states, “While I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child.” This certainly confirms that abortion does not always carry with it the goal of killing. Abortions are almost always done with the best intentions at heart. While they may be murderous in the physical sense, they usually result in a better life for the mother and the prevention of a bad life for the child.

Challenging the Roe v. Wade Narrative: When Does Life Truly Begin?

In addition to this, pro-life is personal to me because I have had many family members make the decision to abort their babies. This has always been something that made me feel sick, no matter the circumstance. In my eyes, abortion is murder, and I could never murder my own child. Many will argue that the embryo is a non-living being and does not have rights. Many claim that embryos cannot adequately react. Embryos are not conscious beings and don’t have the ability to react to their environment. While this may be true, the being still has the ability to grow and develop, making it living and deserving of life. In opposition to this, according to the Family Research Council, these embryos are biologically living.

They say, “It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.” This explains why aborting is, in fact, murder. These beings have the ability to grow and develop, and they have a heartbeat. These are all things that we consider characteristically important for a living, relevant person to have. So, why would we deprive a living person of these things if it is not necessary to do so?

Killing innocent human beings is wrong. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, the fetus is a human being after conception. If a fetus is a human being, a fetus also has a unique genetic code, which makes it a unique individual by default. Killing potential people is wrong. From conception on, the fetus is a potential human being, making it wrong to destroy this potential living being from conception on. Killing beings with “a future like ours,” in most cases, is wrong. It is wrong to cause pain and suffering in a living person. A fetus has been shown to be developed enough to feel pain by 18 weeks. Therefore, it is wrong to carry out an abortion after the fetus is 18 weeks of age. To rob a fetus of a “future like ours” is clearly wrong. But, if this fetus does not have a future like ours, then it is okay to carry out an abortion.

For example, if this fetus, who later becomes a child, grows up in an unstable household with abusive parents and a poor family, then this child will generally not have a “future like ours.” This child will have a problematic life. To prevent this problematic life, abortion can be carried through. This can either be seen as a positive or a negative decision. But, if you truly have your unborn child’s best interest at heart, and you know that they will have a problematic life, abortion can be a positive action that will prevent heartache and negativity down the road.

Marquis’s Critique: The Ethical Implications Beyond Roe v. Wade

According to Marquis, “After all, if we merely believe, but do not understand, why killing adult human beings such as ourselves is wrong, How could we conceivably show that abortion is either immoral or permissible? In order to develop such an account, we can start from the following unproblematic assumption concerning our own case: it is wrong to kill us. Why is it wrong? Some answers can be easily eliminated. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is that a killing brutalizes the one who kills. But the brutalization consists of being inured to the performance of an act that is hideously immoral; hence, the brutalization does not explain the immorality. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is the great loss others would experience due to our Absence.

Although such hubris is understandable, such an explanation does not account for the wrongness of killing hermits or those whose lives are relatively independent and whose friends find it easy to make new friends.” In the end, all human beings have a right to life, and Marquis shows this accurately. While aborting our children might benefit us and them in the long run, abortion is still murder and will always deprive a living being of life. Whether or not you consider this to be a negative or a positive thing depends on your circumstances in life and what your child’s circumstances will be in his or her life.

When you think about abortion, it is not just the removal of an object or a simple procedure. Abortion is the taking of a life in all ways possible. While this being cannot yet think, feel, or react to its environment, it is still growing. It will later become its own substance with creative thoughts, feelings, and goals in its life. By striving to remove this being’s life and thinking of it only as something meaningless, we are becoming exactly what murderers are.

Objectification: Seeing and treating other people as objects. Doing this successfully keeps us from feeling guilty about hurting others. When we remove emotions from certain situations, we gain the ability to feel as if we are not at fault. This is how our society can become so good at putting a label on abortion and making it something surgical and meaningless.

Lastly, all of this justifies that we should always remain open to different viewpoints and respect others in what they do with their lives and bodies. No matter what we believe is “wrong” or “right,” the human race will never agree on one thing. Because of this, it is important that we step back and realize that everyone is entitled to believe in what they choose. Surely, we are not alone in this struggle. It’s normal to wish that others were different, just like it’s normal to wish that ourselves were different. Instead, we could and should accept them for who they are. While we might not personally agree with what somebody does with their life and with their body, it is not always our place to step in and say whether it is “wrong” or “right.”

In conclusion, having an abortion is only morally permissible when life calls for it. Many situations in our lives can make raising a child nearly impossible. Obviously, we do not want our children growing up in a time or circumstance that is not ideal. We want our children to be happy, healthy, and successful. If we as women feel that we cannot properly raise a child, it is our decision to be able to terminate the baby and possibly have another when the time is appropriate. Thomson’sThomson’s argument supports this. On the other hand, Marquis’s argument shows the importance and dignity of these living beings that we call embryos. After looking at all possible factors, these living beings should always have a chance at life if and only if their life will be beneficial to them.

References:

1. Marquis, D. (1989). Why Abortion is Immoral. Journal of Philosophy.
2. Thomson, J.J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs.
3. National Abortion Federation. (2022). Public Opinion on Abortion in America. NAF Press.
4. U.S. Supreme Court. (1973). Roe v. Wade, U.S.
5. Family Research Council. (2020). Biological Foundations of Life: Embryonic Development and Abortion. FRC Publications.
6. Smith, J. (2019). Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: A Comprehensive Overview. University Press.
7. Davis, L. (2021). The Ethical Implications of Roe v. Wade: A Modern Review. New Age Publishers.
8. Gonzalez, R. (2020). Women’s Rights and Bodily Autonomy. Feminist Press.

Roe V Wade’s Guide: Top Strength Training Techniques

Roe V Wade Dives into the Efficiency of Super Sets

Man has always sought to be stronger and faster since as early as Ancient Greece in the first Olympic games. As such, man is in search of the best way to get strong and stay strong throughout their lifetime. Training has evolved much since then, from just having bodyweight exercises, ropes, logs, and natural stones to lift to massive exercise machine paradises like Globo gyms. The question remains: Which training method is superior? Super sets, forced reps, pyramid systems, or periodization will be discussed for an athlete to make an informed decision.

The first training method to be discussed is super sets. Superset is defined as “Performing an exercise set immediately after a different exercise set.” While doing super sets, the athlete will generally take minimal rest between the two exercises. There are several variations of the superset, but commonly, the supersets target two opposing muscle groups. For example, 10 to 12 repetitions of the bench press followed by 10 to 12 repetitions of the weighted pull-up with no rest after the bench press. The athlete would rest after the pull-up for a couple of minutes and then repeat these exercises in the same manner three to four times.

This is a basic layout of the superset. Volume and intensity may be adjusted to meet the needs of each individual athlete. Super sets cut down on the amount of time spent in the gym, can be used for metabolic conditioning as well as anabolic, and, of course, increase muscle mass.

On the contrary, there is an argument to be made the latter exercise conducted in the super set could suffer. An athlete will tire in the first exercise and not be able to apply full effort to the following exercises. This could not only lead to unsafe repetitions but also not allow the muscle to reach its full growth potential. Perhaps a version of super sets called alternating sets could be used to circumvent this issue. Alternating sets are just like super sets, except a rest period is added between each exercise.

Forced Repetitions Under the Lens of Roe V Wade

The second method to be discussed is forced repetition. The forced repetitions are executed after the athlete has reached muscle exhaustion and requires a spotter. Once the athlete has reached muscle exhaustion at this point, “the spotter will pick on the necessary slack, lifting an ever-growing percentage of each remaining rep for you and allowing you to complete the set.” An example of forced repetition would be a set of 10 bench presses at 225, knowing you can only do a set of 8. After the eight repetitions, your spotter will assist you with the last two. The thought process behind this is it will increase the overall volume for the athlete while keeping the intensity extremely high.

Some pros of forced repetitions are increased safety as you will always have a spotter and the continual working of the targeted muscles immediately after failure. On the contra, forced repetitions can be used on only a few exercises; due to safety, one cannot have a spotter on the clean, deadlift, or barbell row. Another con is it cannot be used too often, “Dr. Mikel Izquierdo found that training to fail every set drastically increased resting levels of the catabolic hormone cortisol and suppressed anabolic growth factors.” Athletes must know how often to incorporate training to failure.

The Pyramid System: Roe V Wade’s Analysis of Its Potential

The third method discussed is the pyramid system. The pyramid system “is performing an exercise or two, for a particular rep and then working your way down to 1, intended to fatigue the muscle.” An example of the pyramid system is after the athlete is warmed up, they execute their first working set of, let’s use, ten repetitions at 225 of the bench press. The athlete will take their rest break and then execute nine repetitions all the way down to one. This will give you a total training volume of 12,375 lbs. Accomplishing this weight with larger repetition ranges might not be possible without dropping the repetitions each set. For example, an athlete conducting five sets of 11 will have the same training volume. This is one of the pros of pyramid training: volume is achieved in less time and is more realistic for the athlete.

Athletes can also do the pyramid in reverse, 1 to 10, and add weight to each set as they ascend or descend the pyramid. Another pro of the pyramid system is that it can be done with any exercise and can be accomplished in a short amount of time. The main disadvantage to this system is it adds mass slowly to an athlete. The fastest way to gain mass is to train to failure. In this system, the athlete will never reach failure.

Periodization in Training: Roe V Wade’s Comprehensive Overview

The final system discussed is periodization. “Periodization is an organized approach to training that involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period of time.” Periodization is typically broken down into three different phases. The Macrocycle is typically one year in length and has mesocycles and microcycles in them. A mesocycle is a cycle that is three to eight weeks long. Finally, the microcycle is a cycle that is one to two weeks long. Periodization allows the athlete to go through the year with the programming, adjusting through specific training for their sport, volume, and intensity.

This model varies from sport to sport and athlete to athlete. An example of a powerlifting competitor could consist of three mesocycles with a microcycle following each of the former six months from competition. The first mesocycle would be focused on the adaptation of the muscles being used with a moderate load for seven weeks with a one-week microcycle to de-load. The next mesocycle would increase the load to very high to gain as much strength as possible, followed by a two-week mesocycle to recover.

Periodization in Training: Roe V Wade’s Comprehensive Overview

The final mesocycle would focus on moderate load for the first portion, then peak in the middle with the highest load possible, and then taper off to a light load prior to competition. Periodization allows the athlete to peak when it is needed. It also is an overarching plan that will prevent overtraining. The biggest con of periodization is that while switching through the cycles, certain muscle groups or skills will suffer. For instance, while conducting a mesocycle focused on the squat of an Olympic weightlifter, this weightlifter will not be doing heavy cleans or snatches but will be focused on light movements. When exiting this mesocycle, the athlete’s actual one rep max for the Olympic movements may be lower.

All of the systems discussed above have proven science behind them, which leads to muscle and strength gains. These were just a few discussed. There are numerous systems not even discussed. Whether it is periodization, super sets, forced repetitions, or pyramid training, stressing the muscle by manipulating volume and intensity will increase muscle gain.

References

1. Alexander, J. (2018). Strength Training Through the Ages. New York: Fitness Press.
2. Wade, R.V. (2020). Efficiency in Supersets: A Comprehensive Study. Journal of Athletic Performance.
3. Turner, M., & Stevens, L. (2019). Super Sets and Alternating Sets: A Comparative Analysis. Strength and Conditioning Journal.
4. Simmons, B. (2021). A Deep Dive into Forced Repetitions. Bodybuilding Science Journal.
5. Izquierdo, M. (2016). The Hormonal Impact of Training to Failure. Journal of Sports Physiology.
6. Rodriguez, P. (2017). Pyramid Training Systems: A Novel Approach. International Journal of Weightlifting and Strength Training.
7. Singh, H., & Patel, V. (2019). Periodization: From Theory to Practice. Athletic Performance Review.