Baby’s cries erupt through the hospital nursery as a row of babies seem to awaken at almost the same time. Multicultural shades of brown and ivory can be seen amongst the infants indicative of the different lives that they have yet to start. These children have no idea what’s in store for their future and the parents who gaze through the observation glass are both as equally hopeful as they are worried. The wellbeing of another human, another life, now depends upon their every decision and choice until that child has grown into an adult who can fend for themselves. The reality of today’s society is that not everyone is equipped or able to bring a child into this world and so the topic of abortion arises as a viable alternative. Abortion and adoption are the only two options that some women possess. In today’s society, teenage mothers are becoming an epidemic and children are becoming mothers at early ages (Camosy, 2016).
There are many reasons that have led to an increase in the number of teenage mothers of which society is the greatest offender. Teenage mothers are often not equipped psychologically to deal with raising another life and so they resort to other options. Debated intensely since its inception, abortion has been met with opposition and support for a variety of reasons. In recent years, legislation has been introduced to limit abortion possibilities on the basis of conscious life within the fetus after a certain time period. Specifically, The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act will be the main legislation explored with its most recent media attention. The goal of this position paper is to discuss the main issues of abortion, discuss key stakeholders involved, and discuss those who are in favor or oppose. The social work profession’s position on the issue and how the topic relates to the NASW Code of Ethics will be tied in as well to include an ethical analysis.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act is a United States Congress bill with intentions to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, on the basis that the fetus is capable of feeling pain during an abortion at and after that point of pregnancy (Grossu, 2017). The prevailing legislation prior to the introduction of this bill was established in Roe V. Wade in 1973. Then revised in Planned Parenthood V. Casey in 1992 where the basis of government influence depending on trimester was rejected yet the main right of abortion choice remained with the mother. Yet Roe V. Wade was the catalysis to the division amongst people everywhere of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. The case was against a woman named Jane Roe who sought to terminate her pregnancy despite the law in Texas outlawing abortion.
127 our experts are availableright now
On October 3, 2017, The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act passed the House of Representatives without an amendment. As aforementioned, this topic has been relevant in the media for some time now. Abortion in general has always been a controversial issue, however this particular act has caused a big debate within the last few months. This act is based on a growing body of scientific evidence that states that a 20-week old fetus is susceptible to pain and therefore very much alive. According to a recent article “Advocates of abortion rights say 20-week bans at the state level have harmed women, forcing them to travel to another state, often at great expense, to get the care they seek” (North, 2018). This opinion holds value for those women who possess limited resources and are facing a decision that has either been greatly debated internally or recently discovered.
On the opposing side of the argument, they “fear that, even if it never passes, it will ultimately spread dangerous misinformation” (North, 2018). This view arises from the speculation of pro-choice supporters that the scientific data that supports this bill is not accurate or properly tested. Previous research has shown that developmentally, the babies are not capable of pain reception or cognitive thought until well after the 20th week. These conflicting facts have only widened the schism between opinion on the Act and the necessity of its legislation. The key stakeholders involved in this issue are: Pregnant women, Fathers, Unborn child, Government, Doctors, Care Net (Pro-life), and Planned Parenthood (Pro-choice). Stakeholders can be defined as someone who has a vested interest in a particular field or subject and in this case refers to those affected by abortion whether personally, monetarily or morally.
Pregnant women and fathers are the first main, personally invested group of stakeholders whereas a life hangs in the balance of their decision. On one hand, mothers and fathers are the main decision makers when considering the option of an abortion. Yet the pregnant mother herself holds the final decision unless the doctor has other reasons to suspect that the child is further in their development than legally possible to abort. The unborn child has no bearing on the decision made by its parents but its stake is the highest with its life or death hanging in the balance. The government in some ways, has no real stance on abortion. In some respects, the government feels that it should protect the lives of all those under its dominion but in another light, the ever changing societal values and relations amongst Americans disallow any concrete stance. There are individuals in today’s society who are considered “pro-life” meaning they are against abortion, period. They feel that every child has a right to live, and life begins shortly after the baby is conceived.
Advocates of abortion are considered “pro-choice” holding the view that ultimately the choice is up to that woman on what she decides to do with her reproductive system, as long as she is not affecting others in the society. Nevertheless, these two pro-life and pro-choice movements have been a foremost conflict in regards to abortion. The pro-life and pro-choice movements overlap to an extent in that they share the goal of reducing the number of abortions. They differ with respect to degree and methodology. Proponents of these two arguments tend to oppose each other on a moral and legal basis primarily. Supporters of the pro-life movement believe that any life, especially a human life deserves to be protected from harm and all humans deserve the right to live (May & Deltson, 2016). This point is further supported by scientific research that gives an accurate description of conception and the development progression of a baby. Ultrasound technology is one way of examining the assertion that after conception, the fetus is considered a human being, though an unborn human being.
The fundamental basis of the pro-life argument is that all human beings have the right to be protected by the government and all unborn children are still considered human beings under these same rights. “Those who support abortion rights describe their position as supporting a woman’s autonomy and control over her body and pregnancy status in accord with neoliberal values of rational choice, freedom, and self-determination (Katz, 2015). Pro-choice supporters place high value on the mother’s ability to decide whether she or her lifestyle are a fit environment for raising a child. Yet this views limitations is what gave birth to the pro-choice movement which takes a different approach to the reality of birth.
The Pro-choice argument agrees that the life of a baby is valuable but they give consideration to real life occurrences and the choice of the mother. “Those who oppose access to abortion erase, minimize, or vilify pregnant women in ways that converge with neoliberal judgments of “out of control” sexual activity” (Katz, 2015). For many reasons, women deserve to at least have the choice to decide to alter their life forever with motherhood. Pro-choice proponents believe that religion and government have no influence over the decision of having an abortion. Their basis is that the concept of an abortion is the sole responsibility of the mother. Furthermore, mothers with valid reasons for doubting their options such as children of rape or sex crimes should be taken in consideration rather than potentially persecuted by the law.
The National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics states that social workers are ethically obligated to respect their clients’ rights to self-determination in decision-making. This ethical guideline ensures that social workers must trust that their client is concerned about their own best interests. Although, in the event that their course of action will result in serious harm to themselves or other people, the social worker can intervene by limiting these rights (NASW, 2017). A social worker is someone that is placed in charge of someone’s welfare either by circumstance or necessity. This responsibility proves almost crucial in affairs of legality, living arrangements and possible mental and/or behavioral interventions. So, as you can imagine, a social workers stance on something as important as abortion is crucial but limited. It is my opinion that a law should be put into place in regards for a woman to abort her baby after 20 weeks or more.
I am pro-choice. I feel that every woman should have a right to do what they want with their own body and reproductive system. No woman should be forced to do anything when everyone else wasn’t involved when the baby was convinced, only the mother and father. We have to keep in mind that some women simply do not have the means to properly take care of a child. In my opinion, raising a child in an inadequate home or environment is even worse. A woman may not want to give birth and give her child up to the system for adoption. However, personally, I probably would not abort a baby after 20 weeks or more, but again every woman should be given a right to make that decision.
Personally, it seems that I stand on the fence between the pro-life and pro-choice stance because I respect that a woman deserves the choice of what to do with her body and child. Yet I feel that after 20 weeks, I would have developed such an intense bond with the growing child within me that I would be unable to abort him or her. Being raised in a primarily Baptist house, the value of life and the lives of those around us was always a gravitating factor at church. This gave me the basis for the moral compass I have developed over the years, yet my experience in college altered my perception of situations. Witnessing classmates experiencing pregnancy scares and the boys, barely men, that have become young fathers has placed me firmly on a precipice when considering the validity of this act.
Those that are for the initiation of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act are primarily pro-life on the premise that the support for the introduction of the act is scientific evidence of consciousness at or before 20 weeks. Pro-choice advocates are technically invested as well because the act does not question the validity or opportunity of abortion but rather the developmental placement. So, in many ways, this act would not necessarily raise concern for a social worker unless their client was particularly adamant about an abortion at a later stage. In some cases, social workers should not intervene in accordance with their ethical code on privacy and discretion.
The topic of abortion has always been controversial and will remain so as long as the procedure exists. There will always be the question of whether you are killing a baby or saving its life by not bringing a child into a world where it may suffer. Despite the musings of pro-life proponents who are typically religious in nature, the reality of life in today’s society leaves many people ill equipped for a life with a child. The economical, personal and social obligations that come with a child are often insurmountable especially if you are young and without support from a family that may shun you. Although, it is more prevalent today to see a teenage mother than it was a few years ago.
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Act seeks to limit the amount of abortions occurring before 20-weeks in an attempt to save babies that are essentially being painfully discarded according to the scientific findings of several studies. Without more scientific evidence and backing in the Senate, the legislation will not pass and has already been turned down earlier in the year. The restrictions currently in place on state and federal levels that will be met with opposition but none that hasn’t already been seen in previous years from the feverous debate between sides. There are many possibilities and options open to women but I feel that the more restrictions that are placed on women, the more illegal activity will be involved as a way to circumvent the government’s restrictions on their body.
Especially, if their time window is shortened by the inaction of this bill and any amendments that may follow. This type of reaction is possible for women of low income or difficult situations that would be denied the attention of a real abortion clinic doctor due to government law. Intolerance is often met with opposition on many fronts and abortion is not immune to this statement. Yet it can be surmised that overall, the bill lobbies in favor of the pro-life supporters who essentially would cut off a significant amount of resources from women they believe should carry their pregnancies to term. This would be despite the female or families choices, essentially robbing the woman of her right to self-determination.
There are many conflicting views concerning the Pain Capable Unborn Child Act although we can all agree that a baby’s life holds value. The debate, the hostility, the concern arises when it is questioned whether a mother should decide if that life is able to come into the world. Abortion is not an evil act nor is it a completely innocent one but it is often a necessity. Today’s society is wrought with sexual predators, victims of circumstance and often unequal economic prospects. No one has the right to decide whether someone else’s decisions are properly motivated if they have not lived in their shoes.
So, in conclusion I have determined that I do not support the bill in the context of removing the right of choice but I would be remiss not to mention that if babies are capable of feeling pain at this junction of 20-weeks then I support the developmental limitation it would place on abortions. Further investigation is necessary to determine the validity of the findings to garner more support for this bill.
