Abortion is unlike the other matters debated nowadays. Millions of females have aborted a baby, and the loss, pain, and emotional requirement to excuse what was done, on the part of the female parent and on a part of her relatives, is strong and profound. This presupposes that, in any discussion, a person can face the invisible thumb on a scale so that even the finest logic will fail to convince. People have so much misunderstanding on this matter because of one being human and one’s inclination to accept or reject some fundamental moral principles without the careful examination of them. The aim of this paper is to look at the issue seriously and to assert why abortion should be made illegal. The paper also points out the grounds why one might prefer the abortion. Whilst one is pro-choice in a case of abortion, and feels it should be officially permitted and the option of the female, it is crucial to consider the view that a child does not have human rights within the womb. The citizens of the USA never supported this pro-choice stance. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that “officially recognized” abortion as an outcome of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This paper uses the book “Billions and Billions” written by Carl Sagan. In Carl Sagan’s last book, “Billions and Billions,” the author reprints the article on abortion, which was co-written with his wife Ann Druyan for Parade Magazine and issued in April 1990.
Thesis statement: A woman’s inherent right to control own body should not include the right to murder a fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, equal to the baby; no person has the right to take another human being’s life as murder is murder; baby that is inside can not make decisions and is being murdered for something it can not stop or help.
Points against the Abortion
Sagan’s chapter on the issue of abortion is the must-read for everybody – not considering of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life (Sagan 166-178). Basically, this chapter includes the methodical look at the matter and asks the serious questions from two sides. The readers are not likely to hear all of this in one place and definitely not from only one of the camps. The author points that at the first minute of conception baby is alive. It becomes an existing organism as soon as sperm has penetrated an egg (Sagan 166-178). This presupposes even if the abortion occurs extremely early in the initial trimester it would still be murdering a living thing. A common notion is that if you have abortion before several weeks, then it is fine as a baby is not alive yet, but this is not correct. Primarily, if a person thinks abortion is lawful then it is the same as saying it is okay to go kill somebody else for something they did to you, or for any other motive (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). Too many girls have abortions as they got pregnant by a man who was just a one-night acquaintance, or as the boyfriend left them after discovering about the pregnancy. But the following fact should be considered: should a female be allowed to murder this baby after it was born if the boyfriend left her then? It is the same thing and it is wrong. This is one ground why abortion should be against the law.
The following ground why abortion should be against the law is that no human being has the right to take another person’s living. Basically it is what is happening when the abortion occurs (Sagan 166-178). A human being (a mother) is taking another person’s living (a child.) Under any other circumstances but this it would be recognized as the first degree murder. The parents should not be permitted to make a decision whether or not other human being should pass away just due to the fact she was not ready. If you have sex freely, then you realize that you have an opportunity of getting pregnant. There is no 100% way of preventing pregnancy. The single method is to hold off on sex. Thus, if you are afraid of pregnancy, then do not have sex. Every person has a huge accountability. If you accept the accountability of having sex and you get pregnant then you have the accountability of raising own child. If you cannot hold off on sex and you get pregnant, then you have to live with own mistakes, and there should not be silly excuses. This is the second ground why abortion should be made illegal.
The last ground why abortion should be against the law is that a child has no option or even voice in the issue at all. The baby who is in a womb of a mother has not done anything bad or deserving of passing away, but due to the circumstances of the mother a baby has to pass away. The baby is paying for what the parents have done and this is not right. The baby is at the total mercy of one or both parents and should not have to be. Anyway, it is wrong to murder and abortion is the murder (Sagan 166-178).
Arguing from the Position of Law
Concerning the position of the law, it is important to mention the case Roe v. Wade. Many people do not actually realize what the Supreme Court decided in 1973. They think the Court made the abortion lawful in the initial trimester of pregnancy merely, and that it is the subject to considerable restrictions and regulations nowadays. In fact, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did not evolve the restricted right to abortion but practically limitless right to abortion throughout pregnancy (Sagan 166-178).
This case involved 1854 Texas law banning abortion except “for the aim of saving the life of mother” (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). A plaintiff, whose name is Norma McCorvey, filed suit declaring the Texas law denied her of her constitutional rights (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). Seven members of the US Supreme Court agreed. Whilst admitting abortion issue is not in the text of Constitution, they decided a right to abortion was a part of the right to the privacy, which the Court had created in prior rulings concerning contraception rules (Sagan 166-178). They also decided the term “person” in the Constitution did not embrace the fetus.
For the discussion on abortion policy, the most crucial part of the ruling to acknowledge is the novel “law” it created: the Court ruled abortion has to be allowed for any reason a female chooses till the baby becomes viable; after the viability, an abortion should still be allowed if doctor sees the abortion required to protect a female’s “health,” defined by the Court as “all aspects – physical, psychological, emotional, and the female’s age – relevant to the welfare of a patient (Sagan 166-178).
This is how the Court evolved the right to abort a baby even past a point of viability for “emotional” grounds. In other words, the Supreme Court gave doctors the power to override abortion restriction simply by claiming that there are “emotional” grounds for abortion. Abortion supporters wish to hide this, but liberal journalists, for instance, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times have declared the truth about Roe, asserting that the Supreme Court developed the “absolute right to the abortion” under which “all abortions may be justified” (Savage).
The supporters of abortions may assert that even after limitations are created in the states, there will at all times be abortionists wishing to break this law and take advantage of defenseless females for the financial gain. But as the negative activity will not be totally eradicated is no ground to make it officially permitted (like the laws against the prostitution and drug laws). No individual wishes a female to experience the individual drama of abortion, whether illegal or legal. Women deserve better than abortion. Creating the lawful restrictions to the existing “unlimited right to abortion” will presuppose fewer abortions, and it is to the good of families, women, babies, and society.
There are many points to make concerning the charge that many females will pass away. First, it is not possible to estimate the amount of maternal deaths from the abortion prior to Roe v. Wade as they were not articulated, so the claim concerning the amount of deaths from illegal abortions is completely speculative (Ruse and Schwarzwalder).
Second, it is the fact that one more abortion sphere insider disputed “butcher” notion in ten years before Roe v. Wade. However, hundreds of females have passed away from abortion since Roe v. Wade consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and this is likely just the fraction of the real amount in light of that fact some states have failed to provide the abortion information for years and in light of the freedom provided to physicians in reporting causes of fatality (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Third, the experience of other nations demonstrates that limiting the abortion does not cause the increase in maternal deaths. In spite of the tight abortion limitations, Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rate internationally, according to the research by several companies at the UN (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). Malta also has considerable abortion restrictions and yet has among the smallest maternal bereavement rate internationally, lower than the USA. The information compiled by Polish administrative agencies demonstrates the marked decline in deaths when abortion was made against the law (Ruse and Schwarzwalder).
Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States evolved the virtually limitless right to abortion, a policy with which most citizens disagree. Actually, the nation is not divided down the middle on the issue of abortion, but most of citizens are substantially against the abortion. One of the best surveys was conducted by the Center for Gender Equality, run by Faye Wattleton. Its 2003 countrywide survey of females revealed that the majority of females (51%) think that abortion should either never be allowed or allowed only for incest, rape, or life endangerment (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). That presupposes that the majority of females think abortion should be allowed only in exceptionally rare situations (Finer et al. 113-114). Furthermore, when asked to rank the upper priorities for the females’ movement, the ladies ranked “Keeping abortion lawful” next to last, right before “More young girls in sports (Ruse and Schwarzwalder).
It should be acknowledged that the supporters of abortions have several very strong reasons why abortions should be officially permitted and left to a female to decide. First of all, only a female can make a decision to seek abortion when health of fetus is at risk. Second reason concerns the health or welfare of a woman. Third may be in the case of incest or rape. In relation to the first ground a female should not be expected to bring a baby into this globe if there is something seriously wrong with it, such as missing limbs or mentally challenged. This is not fair to a person to have to live in this way, not being capable to care about oneself, not being capable to tell somebody about own pain. Secondly, a female’s existence should be treated as far more precious life than the potential life of a fetus. People feel this way because if something were to occur to the mother the potential living of the fetus would not exist (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). There is no point in both of them losing their lives. Yes, the mother’s health should be protected. Also the human being with missing limbs, or mentally and severely challenged will most likely not be happy in this society. However, 92 percent of abortions in the USA are totally elective – done on healthy females to end the lives of healthy babies (Finer et al. 113-114).
One also feels that the third reason why abortion should be legally recognized is in the case of rape or incest. Rape is a crime, and one should not be forced to carry the baby to term. However, a child is made in God’s image so who are people to kill that? There is no ground that rationalizes abortion. Not even in case of rape and incest. It is not the fault of the fetus a father made a decision to rape a mother. The president of the American Life League, Judie Brown, suggests this opinion in “The Human Life Amendment”: the woman who is raped has the right to oppose her aggressor (Blanchard 57-94). But the fetus is blameless non-aggressor who should not be murdered due to the felony of a father. Additionally, incest is the voluntary action on the woman’s part. Otherwise it is rape. And to murder the baby due to the personality of his father is no more appropriate in a case of incest than it is in the case of rape (Blanchard 57-94).
If a female is raped, she may give a baby up for adoption as an alternative to abortion? If parents discover there is going to be some health problem they should also consider the adoption as a replacement for murdering child. There are childless people who would gladly adopt a child. Some ladies prefer abortion as a means of birth control (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). They have unprotected sex, get pregnant and say it is just not the appropriate time, not enough capital, thus, they have abortion.
However, the fetus has a right to living just as everyone else. The baby has a right to be born and to be the productive individual in this globe. Abortion should not be lawful because it is immoral (Ruse and Schwarzwalder). Abortion is immoral as murdering a fetus is just as bad as murdering anybody else. If one has abortion, one is depriving the child of a possible living. Life of happiness, love and all kinds of activities, experiences and enjoyment (Waller 270).
The more the issue of abortion is acknowledged, the more one understands it is anti-life, anti-human, and anti-woman. In the attempt to protect females’ freedom and privacy the Supreme Court of the USA developed practically limitless right to abortion, a policy with which most people, in fact, disagree. Actually, the majority of citizens are substantially against the abortion. This paper proves that the woman’s inborn right to control own body should not comprise the right to murder a fetus, which is, for all intents and purposes, similar to the newborn baby; no person has the right to take another human being’s life as murder is murder; baby that is inside can not make decisions and is being murdered for something it can not stop or help.