At the Heart of the Abortion Issue

Abortion is a hot topic of the modern day world. The word “abortion” can invoke emotions and often stray people from making rational decisions. Two camps rest on opposite sides, one pro-choice, the other pro-life, both vying to win their respective arguments. Each side is afraid to agree with any of what the other side says in fear that they will fall down the “slippery slope” and lose all credibility to their argument. To analyze the abortion situation we must put aside our emotions for a while, and view the issue from a rational, objective standpoint. I know this is hard. Everyone is connected to someone who has experienced an abortion, or at least known of someone who has. But I’m not here to evoke pity or prove that I am right and you are wrong. I am here to evaluate the issue at hand by answering three questions that surround the abortion issue: Is the fetus a life? Should equal rights be given to the fetus if it is considered a life? Who should decide who takes the life of the fetus, and does the woman have a choice?

In response to the first question, religious and philosophical beliefs should be set aside, and a purely scientific explanation must be given.

There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school…science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called ‘conception,’ ‘fertilization’ or ‘fecundation.’ This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. (Willke Chapter 10)

Often the term “conception” is confused with “fertilization;” however, “in the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine ‘conception’ to mean implantation. ‘Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization" (Willke Chapter 10). Saying that life begins at conception affirms that abortion does take a life and that the fetus “is not just cells or a parasite...that we are not simply talking about some ‘thing’ we can treat as property. This is an issue concerning a human life. Based on this undeniable fact the right to life applies and must be weighed in against all other considerations” (Sprengel). But with this in mind, a large issue is raised: if the fetus is a life, when is it permissible to take its right to life away?

The right to life is an unalienable right and a founding principle of the United States. In the Declaration of Independence it states that “all men are created equal” and that each individual is given certain unalienable rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Without the right to life, there would be no other rights; “the right to life is the most basic and important right that we have” (Sprengel). However, as with any right, the right to life is not absolute. One right is only as good if extending your right does not hinder the rights of others. Laws set out to enforce civil rights of this nature. Since the right to life of the fetus conflicts with that of the mother, whose life should be held higher? No matter what answer given, one life is being valued, while the other is being devalued. In these instances, the consequences should be weighed and considered case by case.

Weighing each case is important to insure that the best measures are taken, and life is preserved for the mother or the fetus. Both the mother and the unborn child are affected by an abortion so when is it justified to carry out an abortion? In a utopian world, both the unborn child and the mother would not be at risk, and decisions of this sort would not have to be made. However, our world is hardly perfect, and there are situations where it is impossible to save both lives. “When we are faced with a choice we must always choose the lesser of two evils” (Sprengel).

To protect the lives of unborn babies and ignore the lives of the mothers would be immoral, and, thus, the woman, if experiencing trouble in her pregnancy, should be offered help. This help is given with the chance that the fetus may be harmed, but it is a chance that must be taken to insure the health of the mother if she is at risk. If a woman is raped, is a victim of incest, or is in a situation in which the fetus and the mother may be at extreme emotional or physical risk, abortion should be an option. This option should only be considered at times when the pregnancy is a risky option. Sometimes other measures can be taken to insure the mother’s health and keep the baby alive. Early delivery can sometimes be an option. In that instance, both the mother and baby benefit if the procedure proves successful.

Never in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used. (Willke Chapter 10)

Whatever the case, the health of both the mother and the fetus should be considered when making a decision of terminating the pregnancy.

Many will oppose the idea of abortion altogether based on religious views. By making a judgment based on religion alone, a person limits the audience of people who will agree with him or her; after all, not all people share the same religion. Those who hold religious beliefs that only God can give or take life can believe that. However, with this sort of argument, it is easy to state a counterexample. If I were to say, “Yes, I respect your views, but I do not believe what you believe,” I would be giving reasonable opposition. By disagreeing with one of the main ideas built-in to the pro-life argument, the argument has lost credibility. It is impossible to prove a religiously based argument, and it only applies to those who hold the same belief system. “But this is not merely a religious issue, it is primarily a human rights issue, a civil rights issue, and our nation and other western nations, make laws to protect civil and human rights" (Willke Chapter 1).

More often than not, women will have abortions because the pregnancy was not intended. “How such a pregnancy is resolved has been, and always will be, an individual decision, despite the law. But ensuring that whatever decision a woman makes will not harm her health and providing her the means to reduce the likelihood of experiencing an unplanned pregnancy in the first place are key challenges facing policymakers” (Alan Guttmacher Institute). Policies of this sort have sought to lower the number of unintended pregnancies, and, thus, reduce abortion rates.

Higher access to contraceptives is one step closer to preventing abortions from taking place. Some policies seek to increase the coverage of contraception under private insurance, make it more accessible through Medicaid, and wish to improve family planning clinics. Both these measures assure that people of any background or financial status can receive contraceptives and other medical help related to pregnancy prevention and planning. Most of these services are supported by the federal Title X program and has proved to be successful (Alan Guttmacher Institute). However, it is also important to provide long-term contraceptive methods.

Half of the six million pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 10% of women at risk of an unintended pregnancy who do not use birth control (particularly teenagers and older married women) or who use a method only sporadically. The rest occur among women who practice contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. (Alan Guttmacher Institute)

 Many of these pregnancies could be prevented if long-term contraception was used. It is also important to educate people on how to properly use contraceptives because reduction of user error would increase their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. However, some pro-life people will also oppose the use of contraceptives because of moral and religious reasons. My answer to them is the same as anyone else: we need to educate people both on abstinence and proper contraceptive use.

            Just like rights bestowed on an individual, contraception is not absolute. Contraception is hardly perfect, but neither are the people using it. As a result, unplanned pregnancies will not cease to exist. In fact, The Alan Guttmacher Institute stated that in 10,000 women getting abortions, of these 57.5% said they were using a contraceptive the month they became pregnant. However, even though contraception is not absolute, this does not mean it should be used and used wisely.

            The key answer to the abortion situation is education and more accessible contraceptives, not an amendment. Education informs Americans of the issues and facts surrounding abortion and creates a more aware citizen. Those who are more aware will tend to make better decisions and support laws that protect innocent lives from abortion. Recent and past public opinion polls “show that the vast majority of Americans favor broader sex education programs rather than those that teach only abstinence. And, according to the U.S. Surgeon General, an exclusive focus on abstinence is not in line with the weight of the best scientific evidence now available” (Alan Guttmacher Institute). A broad sex education would create better decision-makers. Those who are informed would be able to make decisions more readily on whether to have sex or not, yet be able to protect themselves if they do chose to be sexually active. By creating better decision-makers, bad situations, such as unwanted pregnancy, are avoided. Even if a law or amendment were created, it would only include induced abortions. As a result, “the ‘pill,’ ‘morning-after pill,’ and IUD would still have legal action (contraception, temporary sterilization), even though the other action (abortifacient) would now be legal. Because of the legal action, the anti-abortion law could not forbid the use of these medications” (Willke Chapter 1). Subsequently medications of this sort could have both legal and illegal function, but their use could not be outlawed.

            Both pro-life and pro-choice believers need to learn to put aside their differences and work together to make this world a better place. The two sides can agree that abortion does take a life, but each use rhetorically strong arguments to “bash” the other side, and often leave rationality out of their reasoning. What good will tearing apart the opposition’s beliefs do except accentuating each other’s differences and decreasing our chances of compromise. We must respect each other’s views and give constructive criticism. Do not just tell a woman she is horrible for considering an abortion; tell her options, guide her, and hope that she makes the best decision possible. People should be educated to make good decisions and made aware of their options. There are many options each of us face each day, but not everything that is presented to us is carried out. Just because we are presented with a situation in which we could hurt someone else, does not mean we will do just that. But if that situation were to change to a life-threatening situation, it is nice to know that we have the option to defend ourselves. Just with abortion, people should have the choice, but having that choice does not guarantee that it is just to carry out the act in all cases. We do not hurt people for the sake of hurting people, but is it really just to say that we cannot defend ourselves altogether?