Case Study: Abortion

Sharon is having a baby. Or, at least, she might. That’s the question that is at the heart of this matter, whether or not she should abort the fetus. It’s a difficult decision to make, when taking into account the various factors surrounding the pregnancy and the impact it will likely have on her life in the years to come. It can have a monumental impact not only on her career, but also on her happiness, her future, her lifestyle, and her marriage. However, there are several things weighing against that in this argument. The impact on her career could be minimized, her happiness can be assured, her future can be kept much as she envisions it, her lifestyle can remain relatively unaltered, and her marriage can survive this pregnancy. After weighing everything, Sharon should see this pregnancy through to the end, instead of aborting.
Yes.
Sharon’s Right to Choice is very much a factor. The argument that she has the power of choice over her own body is strong, and it is one commonly used by many pro-choice advocates. She feels very much that she doesn’t want to have this baby, for a number of reasons, and discovering convincing arguments to persuade her to carry out this pregnancy is no easy task.
Yes.
She has been told that her career may suffer greatly should she go through with her pregnancy, as her boss feels that a woman with a family cannot keep up to speed with the hectic pace of the legal world. While she won’t lose her job with Van Patten and Van Patten, her chances for advancement will be hamstrung to the point where she will have reached the “glass ceiling.”
Yes.
Sharon’s happiness is at stake, as well, because the pregnancy will not only impact all of the things mentioned above, but it could have long-term effects on every single aspect of her life, career, and general happiness. By continuing through with this pregnancy, Sharon is putting everything in her life on the line. Her marriage could potentially be disrupted by this sudden arrival, especially if there is a long period during which Sharon’s husband is forced to support the entire household, whereas they had previously been a two income household. This won’t last long, but it could lead to strained relations and resentment within the relationship. This seriously challenges Sharon’s happiness with her own life.
Yes.
This pregnancy was unplanned. Sharon and her husband had sex without using birth control shortly after Sharon stopped using the pill, neither aware that her natural biological rhythms would be off due to having gone off the birth control so recently.
No.
The unplanned nature of the pregnancy was not due to things that would legally be considered “special circumstances” for an abortion. In other words, Sharon was not raped or the victim of abuse, she was made aware of the disruption to her biological functions by her doctor and simply forgot to pay heed to them. This places the responsibility of that lack of planning with Sharon, who cannot claim ignorance, and thus nullifies the argument that the pregnancy was unplanned. While it might have been unanticipated, no attempts were made to prevent the pregnancy from occurring.
No.
There is little to no risk to Sharon’s life and health from this pregnancy due to her being a healthy woman who takes good care of herself. Providing she maintains a healthy lifestyle throughout the pregnancy, neither she nor the fetus should face any serious risks to their health or development. Moreover, much of the stress that would enter into Sharon’s life should she see the pregnancy through to fruition can be nullified by putting the child up for adoption as an alternative to abortion. By taking that alternative, she not only satisfies many of her issues with happiness, but she also deals with many of the problems she faces in her career.
No.
If she chose to keep the child, but was concerned about the impact on her career, she should realize that such discrimination would be grounds for a rather hefty lawsuit, especially considering that she is a lawyer and is familiar with such concepts. Further, the future advancements Sharon hopes for in her career are based off of her confidence in her skill as an attorney, and thus she should have little trouble keeping up with the pace even if she kept the child after birth, and she could even find work with another firm or start her own.
No.
Sharon might have the choice over what happens to her body, but she also has the responsibility to make those choices wisely. In this case, she has the financial security to support her child and the means at her disposal to create a healthy and happy environment for her child, her husband, and herself. The fact that she might not want to continue the pregnancy is largely separate from the fact that she participated in consensual sex without the use of any form of contraception, and thus her choice was to take the chance of getting pregnant. That was her choice, and one must follow through on the choices they make.
No.
Not only did Sharon make the choice not to use contraception, but she also chose not to see her doctor for weeks and weeks after she began to feel strange and notice changes indicative of pregnancy. This has left her unaware of her situation until nearly halfway through the full term, which creates some very pressing issues about the ethics of a possible abortion. Using the Supreme Court definition of “viability” after 1989, she has just barely passed the point of “viability,” so if she were to have the abortion it may or may not be legal. So close to the point of “viability,” though, would make it very difficult for Sharon to find a licensed and safe professional to perform the procedure; so she may be forced to turn to a less-than-professional person to perform her abortion. While this is illegal on its own, it is also very dangerous and could result in unnecessary risks to Sharon’s health, destroying any possibility as a viable option. While this point of “viability” might have been a lot further into the pregnancy in 1973, the advance of medical technology has created a world in which a fetus can survive outside the womb much earlier, and Sharon can’t claim the choice to live her life according to laws as they were written in the past, nor could anyone else.
No.
Sharon should also take into account the feelings of her husband on this matter. She hasn't yet considered that he is willing to make the sacrifices she worried about ruining their relationship for the sake of raising a family with her, nor did she consider that he would have an impact on the financial aspect of this pregnancy coming to term without using adoption as an alternative. She also hasn’t considered what she might be terminating, and what that means in the long run. One of the questions pervading the abortion debate is whether or not each abortion could be the next Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Should she deprive the potential child of the future it might have for the sake of her own future? Which would take precedence and how can that be determined? This argument, while extremely profound, only demonstrates the emotive arguments used by both sides of the debate, and really offers no solid basis of analysis for such a profound and personal dilemma as this.
However, after weighing everything with the potential negatives, the potential positives, and ignoring the generally emotive absolutes put forth by various radical groups, the logical evidence provides the conclusion that Sharon should continue with this pregnancy to the end, and then go from there. Whether she decides to put the child up for adoption or to keep it, she has no outstanding and notable reason to get an abortion other than that this pregnancy was an inconvenience on her and she’d rather not pay for the results of her own oversights. That line of reasoning is not a solid basis upon which to make a decision of that magnitude.