In 1973, the case of Roe vs. Wade seemed to establish what many thought to be the end of female discrimination in terms of individual reproductive rights and freedoms. By granting this constitutional right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, all pregnant women have the right to terminate their pregnancy before their delivery date as part of a personal choice in family matters.However, this uprooted an ongoing ethical battle of the rights of someone else…the unborn child. According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience.” This declaration means that all people are entitled to basic human rights regardless of nationality, sex, age, ethnicity,race, religion, language, or status. Pro-life arguments always revolve around this critical issue that needs to be pointed out…exactly when does this “right to life” start for all humans? Is it once the child is born or do these “birthrights” apply to the embryo at the moment of conception? The American Convention on Human Rights established in 1978, that every single person has the right to havehis life respected and above all, protected by law from the moment of conception. This being said, it is evident that there is a complex, controversial conflict between the rights of a woman and a fetus. Ultimately, is it morally correct to give pregnant women the power to terminate their unborn child’s life, as a reproductive freedom or is abortion a violation to a potential person’s right to life?II. Counter Argument
Many women feel that abortion is something they should be entitled to go through because it is in fact their bodies, hence their decision what to do with it. An unwanted pregnancy is not something one could always prevent. In fact, sometimes there are circumstances where abortion seems like the only choice left. Circumstances include, but are not limited to, a victim ofrape or incest, teenage high-risk pregnancies, genetic birth defects, psychiatric or mentally handicapped women, economically unstable single parent…etc. These women desire the ability to have a back-up plan when perhaps the original back-up plan failed. Circumstances under this category include but are not limited to, as a form of regular birth control, failed contraceptives, undesired father ofthe child, disfiguring one’s body, religious or moral shame, school or job opportunities…etc. Many argue if the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother’s life and well-being, abortion should be the first line of treatment. The Pro-Choice activist proclaim every day in heated debates that it’s a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, and if she decides that she is not capable of bringinga child into this world, than she shouldn't be forced to stay pregnant. They don’t necessarily promote abortion…however they promote reproductive choices for women. The state of course needed to regulate this freedom by establishing a time frame on when it was permissible by law to terminate a pregnancy. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, restricted a certain form of abortion performedpast 24 weeks of gestation from the moment of conception. That’s a whooping 6 months of a heart-beating, moving, pain-feeling fetus suctioned out through an invasive vacuum.
III. My argument
Perhaps it’s because of my personal adoration for children, but I have never quite understood why under any circumstance, people could possibly consider abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is not a likeany other surgical or non-surgical procedure. It deals with two lives at stake, rather than one. The only comparison that could ever match up to abortion is parturition itself. Ironically it’s the two opposite poles of the spectrum. However, in parturition, the purpose is to deliver life into the world, not discard it before giving it a chance to breath, feel or live on its own. To me, abortion...